Loading...
boa_12 16 1985LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD December 16, 1985 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being 7 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: B.L. Murphree George Wells Ronald Woods Joe Norcross Thomas McGowan Herbert Rideout Members Absent: Ellis Walton Steve Smith City Attorney: Pat Benton December 16, 1985 Item No. A - Z-4552-A Owner: Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #17 By: Robert Newcomb Address: 1702-1714 East Second Description: Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block B Fletcher and Clark Addition Zoned: "R-4" Two Family ( "C -3" rezoning request has been filed) Variance Requested: 1. From the parking provisions of Section 8-101.B of the Zoning Ordinance to permit less than required number of spaces. 2. From the front and rear yard setback provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to permit a 4-foot canopy in the front yard and a 4-foot building intrusion into the rear yard (as a 25-foot setback from the floodway of the Arkansas River is required). Justification: 1. The "C-3" rezoning if used for business purposes only would not require even 43 slots for this size building. The building that is being built calls for 72 parking spaces based on the heated and cooled square footage. The square footage is going to be divided in half with one portion being a basketball court. It is doubtful that even the 43 places will be a regular use. 2. The front yard setback deals with a 4 -foot canopy that will be 40 feet in length which will come within 10 feet of the building corner. This will need a variance that does not encroach the permanent structure too close to the building line. December 16, 1985 Item No. A - Continued 3. The rear yard setback requirement that needs the variances on the property line that faces the Arkansas River. There will be an encroachment of approximately 4 feet too close to the back property line, but there is no building nor possibility of a building on that side of the property and this variance should not cause any problems. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Construction of a police lodge STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Revise parking plan. B. Staff Analvsis The proposal is to construct a new lodge for the Fraternal Order of Police on the eastern end of East 2nd. In addition to the various variance requests, a rezoning to "C-3" has been filed to permit the use. There are two issues involved with this application, and they are permitting a reduction in the number of parking spaces and allowing setback intrusions for the front and rear yards. Ordinance No. 14,534 also establishes a 25-foot setback from the floodway of the Arkansas River in this situation. Both yard encroachments are only four feet and the structural involvement will be very minimal. In the rear, only the very northwest corner of the building will be located in the 25-foot area, and the front yard setback involves a 4-foot canopy. The staff feels that the setback variances will not cause any problems and supports them. The primary issue involved with this property is the parking variance. The proposed lodge will have 7,200 square feet, and the Zoning Ordinance requirement for parking is one space per 100 square feet or 72 spaces for this particular building. The Fraternal Order of Police is proposing 43 spaces or a reduction of 29 from the ordinance standards. The FOP December 16, 1985 Item No. A - Continued has indicated that because of the design of the structure, it will not be all in use at one time and the 43 spaces will adequately meet their needs. A significant portion of the building will be utilized for a basketball court and that is all it will be used for. In addition to the off-street spaces, there is some on- street parking available, because there is no other development in the immediate area. Under the circumstances, staff feels that proper justification exists for granting the parking variance and supports the request. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of both the parking and setback variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-18-85) The applicant was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the December 16, 1985, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-16-85) The applicant was represented by Ken Baer, a member of the Fraternal Order of Police. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to grant the requested variances. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. December 16, 1985 Item No. 1 - Z-3508 -A Owner: Robert M. Goff Address: 317 South Shackleford Description: Lot 1, Robert M. Goff Subdivision Zoned: "C-2" Shopping Center District Variance Requested: From the height provisions of Section 7-103.2/D to permit new construction with a height of 255 feet plus or minus. Justification: There are several conditions that limit the buildable area on this site. The site's unusual configuration and its location in an interstate exit require a 45-foot setback from the property line on three sides. Along the remaining north property line there are steep, wooded slopes and a natural rock outcropping to remain. With the buildable area reduced, the maximum building footprint design is reduced. Overall dimensions are approximately 175-feet square to provide adequate parking for office and retail in this reduced area. The project design locates the office over the parking deck and retail under on the ground level. This utilizes one elevator core for access to the main lobby and all parking and office levels. The stacking of these functions necessitates the height variance on this "C-2" Tract. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Office, commercial and parking December 16, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None have been reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analvsis The proposal is to construct a new building with a height of approximately 255 feet, a total of 16 floors. The property is zoned "C-2" which permits a height of 45 feet with no allowances for increasing the height if the setbacks are increased proportionately. The proposed height is 466 percent greater than what is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The preliminary site plan shows one structure that will incorporate the parking deck and office tower together. The parking will be available on the first six levels and then there will be office space on nine floors with a penthouse. The projected space allocation calls for 120,000 square feet of office, 8,800 square feet of retail to be located on the ground level and a total of 472 spaces, 410 in the deck and 62 around the building. The site is located on South Shackleford in close proximity to the I-430/I-630 interchange and directly south of the new Holiday Inn that is under construction on Shackleford. This area has become one of Little Rock's most desirable for new development, with a mix of office and retail. Currently, the majority of new buildings are two to three stories, with the tallest one having six or seven floors. The applicant has indicated site configuration, limited size, location and the need for providing parking as justification for the variance. Also, the applicant has stated that a 45-foot building line on three sides substantially reduces the amount of buildable area. After carefully reviewing the proposal, staff's position is that a true hardship does not exist to justify a height variance of this size and does not support the request. The site is fairly small and staff is concerned that the proposal is over building the site and could possibly add to the problems that already exist in the area such as traffic. The site does not lend itself to a structure of this size or such intensive use. Another concern is that the proposed project is incompatible with previous actions that have taken place in the area. Staff is also concerned that in addition to the variance request the proposal creates a land use issue, and staff feels that the office tower is an inappropriate land use for the location. December 16, 1985 Item No. 1 - Continued (Because of the "C-2" zoning site plan review by the Planning Commission is required for any development proposed for the property.) C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the height variance as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-16-85) Staff informed the Board of Adjustment that the required notification of property owners had not been accomplished. A motion was made to defer the request to the January 21, 1986, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. December 16, 1985 Item No. 2 - Z-3520-A Owner: Exxon Corporation Address: 7600 Cantrell Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-4" Open Display Variance Requested: From the setback provisions of Section 7-103.4/E.1 and .2 to permit a new canopy with setbacks of 23 and 35 feet. Justification: Exxon presently operates the subject site with three islands. Two islands are on Cantrell and one is on Keightly. After reconstruction, all three islands will be stacked, serving Cantrell Road. The proposed layout will improve traffic flow and safety on the site by aligning all the islands along the major street. Presently, two pump islands are within the 45-foot setback required for construction. After completion of construction, two islands and the canopy will still be within the 45 foot setback. Present Use of Property: Service Station Proposed Use of Property: Same Because of the odd shaped lot and extreme corner angle, it is difficult to get a layout which will serve the customer and meet the setback requirements. Under current City Ordinance, a minimum setback of 45 feet is required. If a strict interpretation of the subject ordinance is in force, no modernization of this site would be possible. As a result, a variance is required for the placement of the pump islands and canopy. December 16, 1985 Item No. 2 - Continued STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been reported at this time. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to permit encroachments into the front and side yards. The "C-4" District requires 45 feet for both the front and side yards in this situation, because of being a corner lot. The proposal is to reduce the front yard to 23 feet and the side yard to 35 feet. The site is currently occupied by a service station with one building and three pump islands of which two are within the 45-foot setback. Exxon has initiated a modernization program in the Little Rock area and plans for this location call for the structure to be relocated to the northeast and have all islands under one large canopy. The proposed modification of the site will be an improvement over the current situation, especially for circulation. The new orientation of the pump islands will improve traffic flow, because they will primarily be serving Cantrell Road. The property does have some unique characteristics, site configuration and being on a corner, which create justification for the reduced setback. Without some type of variance it would be almost impossible to upgrade the facility, and staff supports the request. In addition to the new structure and pump islands, increased landscaping will be provided which will greatly enhance the site. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variances as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to grant the variances as requested. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. December 16, 1985 Item No. 3 - Z-3570-B Owner: Lois R. Coulson Address: 7400 Cantrell Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-4" Open Display Variance Requested: From the setback provisions of Section 7-103.4/E to permit a new building and expansion of existing canopy not meeting setback requirements. Justification: 1. Requirement for clearance between structures causing car wash to be moved back. 2. Dedication of right-of-way along Cantrell Road. Present Use of Property: Service Station Proposed Use of Property: Same with car wash STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues (To be reported later) B. Staff Analysis The site is currently occupied by a service station with one building and two small pump islands under a canopy. The proposal is to enlarge the canopy and to construct a self-service car wash on the northeast corner of the property. The new construction, as proposed, will encroach into the front, side and rear yards. The site is zoned "C-4" and because of being located on a corner, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 45 foot setback for the front and side yards with a 25 foot rear yard. The existing canopy has some setback but does not meet the Ordinance requirements. The new canopy will have a 0 foot setback if the variance is granted because of the need to dedicate 10 feet of additional right-of-way for Cantrell Road. Staff feels that the right-of-way dedication does create a hardship and supports necessary variance for the front yard setback. The 45 foot requirement would almost preclude the site being used without some type of variance. December 16, 1985 Item No. 3 - Continued The new construction for the site is a four bay car wash to the northeast of the existing building. Staff feels that a true hardship does not exist for the car wash and cannot support the variance. The property has limitations and the car wash just does not work as is proposed. The issue of over building the site becomes a real concern and also, because of the property's location, the potential for traffic problems does exist. The car wash could create two many adverse impacts for the location. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the front yard variance for the enlarged canopy, but denial of the necessary variances for the car wash. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Mike Coulson, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Coulson discussed the variances for the car wash and the justification for it. There were a number of comments made about circulation and if the site could accommodate the proposed car wash. At this point, staff also informed the Board that the car wash would create multiple structures on one lot which the Board of Adjustment could approve. There was a long discussion about various issues including the multiple buildings. Mr. Coulson requested the Board of Adjustment to consider approving the multiple structures in their action. A motion was made to approve the variance for the canopy and two principle buildings /uses on one site, but deny the requested variances for the car wash. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. December 16, 1985 Item No. 4 - Z -4583 Owner: Various Owners Address: 1805 South Woodrow Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I -3" Heavy Industrial Variance Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section 7-104.3/D.2 to permit a new addition with a 7.7 foot setback. Justification: The lot is zoned "I-3" Heavy Industrial which requires 30-foot side yards. The property itself is only 75 feet in width which allows only a 15-foot wide structure that does not utilize the property efficiently. The existing buildings have been there for 30 years. One building does not have a side yard and another has a 7.7 foot side yard. This building that has a 7.7 foot side yard is the building we are proposing to build the canopy on. Present Use of Property: Office and warehouse Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The proposal is to construct a new canopy between two existing buildings with a 7.7 foot side yard. The property is zoned "I-3" which requires a 30 foot side yard setback. The canopy will be attached to the building with a 7.7 foot side yard on the north side and a 31 foot setback on the south. Another building on the site is constructed with no setback on one side. The existing buildings were constructed under the old Zoning Ordinance which had no setback requirements for the industrial districts. December 16, 1985 Item No. 4 - Continued With the 75-foot lot, it would be almost impossible to construct any type of usable building meeting the current setback requirements. Lot size and an "I-3" setback requirement create a hardship for this particular site and staff supports the request. By matching the existing roofline and being only a canopy, there will be no impact from the new construction on other properties in the immediate area. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was represented by Jack West. There were no objectors. A motion was made to grant the variance as requested. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. December 16, 1985 Item No. 5 - Z-4588 Owner: Gary N. Speed Address: 615 Asbury Road Description: Lot 8, Block 3, Parkway Place Zoned: "R-2" Variance Requested: From the rear yard provisions of Section 7-103.2/D.3 to permit new construction with a 17-foot setback. Justification: 1. The trapezoidal shape of the lot make it difficult to place a house of this design on the lot without violating either the rear yard, side yard or front setback requirements. 2. Only a corner of the house will be less than 25 feet from the east line. Due to the lot shape, other portions of the house will be consistent with the zoning requirements. 3. A steep slope in the southwest corner makes movement of the garage to the south undesirable. 4. Although the rear yard will be diminished, the house will have over 15 feet of side yard on the north and 24 feet of side yard on south. Further, the driveway portions of Lots 7 and 9 give Lot 8 the apperance of even greater side yards. Although this proposed construction on Lot 8 will place the houses on Lots 8 and 7 more closely together, concentration will be less than if the houses were side by side in a normal subdivision configuration. Present Use of property: Vacant December 16, 1985 Item No. 5 - Continued Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residence STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit new construction of a single family residence to encroach into the rear yard by a maximum of 8 feet. The "R-2" District requires a 25 foot rear yard so that at the nearest point the rear yard will be reduced to 17 feet. The owner has provided proper justification for their variance and staff supports the request. Because of the lot shape, meeting the rear yard setback would necessitate crossing into the 25 foot front building line so a waiver would be required for that. The lot does create a hardship and the proposed setback will not impact the abutting properties because there will still be adequate separation. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of setback variance as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. December 16, 1985 Item No. 6 - Z-4580 - Interpretation Issue Owner: Roy Burks' Family Address: 126 White Oak Lane Description: Lots 28 and 29, Wilton Heights Addn. Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Request: Interpretation requested relative to determination of structural status. That is, is the structure in question a permanent building or a trailer of mix thereof? Justification: The owner uses the structure for certain off -site retail sales operations. At this time, he does not have an axle and cannot qualify as a trailer for licensing. However, a permanent foundation is inappropriate. Present Use of Property: The structure serves as a playhouse for the owners children on a vacant lot next door to the lot to the homesite. Proposed Use of Property: Remain the same STAFF REPORT: This issue is before the Board of Adjustment because the Zoning Ordinance does not address temporary buildings of this nature. The question being can the owner have a portable building for both a commercial and residential use. Also, there is a neighbor who has complained about the appearance of the unit. The existing building is situated on a lot next to 126 White Oak Lane and both lots are owned by Mr. Roy Burks and his family. The structure currently serves two functions and that is why it is not permanent. First, Mr. Burks uses it for his business, screen printing, by transporting it to different functions such as the State Fair. Secondly, when the unit is located on the lot, it serves as a playhouse form Mr. Burks' children and is placed on cement blocks. Currently, Mr. Burks transports the building on a flatbed trailer, but in the future he plans to put an axle under it. (See attached letter for additional details.) December 16, 1985 Item No. 6 - Continued Staff feels that the unit is really no different from a utility or small recreational trailer and creates no adverse problems. The owner has placed the building as far as possible from the street, but it is still very visible because of material that was used to fabricate the unit. Because of this, staff suggests that a fence be placed around two sides, the west and south. This would still make the structure readily accessible, and at the same time, screen it from White Oak Lane. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (11-18-85) The owner was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the December 16, 1985, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-16-85) Roy Burks, the owner of 126 White Oak Lane was present. There were three other persons in attendance who expressed an interest in this issue. Matt Parker spoke and said that the structure had no axle so it was not a trailer on its own. He made additional comments about the staff report and read a petition requesting the Board of Adjustment not to grant the variance. Mr. Parker said that too many problems had been caused by 126 White Oak Lane and that a number of violations had been reported to the City. Nancy Newcomb reinforced what Mr. Parker had said. Mr. Burks then addressed the Board of Adjustment. He described the structure and said it could be fitted with an axle and has a removable tongue. He said the building was 8 x 10, 6 1/2 feet high and used by his children as a playhouse. There was a long discussion about the various items. Both Ms. Newcomb and Mr. Parker spoke again and discussed other issues. A motion was offered which stated that the structure did not qualify as a trailer by definition because of having no permanent axle and not being licensed by the State of Arkansas. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. December 16, 1985 There being no further business before the Board of Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 2:50 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date