Loading...
boa_01 21 1985LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD JANUARY 21, 1985 2:00 P.M. I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present be ing 7 in number. II.Ap proval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III.Members present: Members ab sent: City Attorney: George Wells B.L. Murp hreeJoe NorcrossSteve SmithEllis WaltonHerbert RideoutThomas McGowanRichard Yada (after Item 2) Ronald Woods Tom Carp enter C-January 21, 1985 Item No. A -Z-4381 Owner: Ad dress: Description: Zoned: variance Re quested: JUSTIFICATION: Junius B. and Sa rah R. Cross 2118 North Palm Street Lot 5, Block 5, Country Club Heights Addition "R-2" Single Family 1.From the rear yard setbackprovisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 topermit an addition with a 22.1 footsetback (ordinance requires 25 feet) 2.From the side yard setbackprovisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 topermit an addition with a 1.2 footsetback (ordinance requires 5 feet) 1.This property is in an older area of the city wheremany variances have already been exercised similar tothese, plus many such variances were done prior to thepresent code requirements. 2.The properties to either side and across the alley havestructures closer to the lines and alley easement thanhere requested in some instances. 3.The architect who planned the variances is a neighborwho is expertly familiar with accepted variances in thearea and developed the plans for me with this in mind. 4.The remodeling job is underway, and we are approachingthe part of the construction that the variances affect,and the weather is degenerating rapidly for this typeof project, the delay of which would be costly spoilageof construction already done. Also, work outdoors inwinter would be a physical hardship on labor, etc.,increasing costs of construction considerably. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residence Same with expansion ( ) ( January 21, 1985 Item No. A -Continued STAFF REPORT: A. B. c. Engineering Issues None. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a new 32 by 38 foot addition at the rear of the existing residence and a carport on the north side of the house. The pr oposed carport will be approximately 11.5 feet by 40 feet. The new construction will almost doub le the size of the existing floor space and with an addition of that size, there are few alternatives ot her than adding a second story or encroaching into the required yard area. Even with the addition of this size, the encr oachment will only be approximately 3 feet and there still will be adequate separation to the west because of the alley. The addition will reduce the amount of undeveloped rear yard, but sta ff believes that this is a minor concern. An existing accessory building will be removed so that will open up the area somew hat. The proposed carport will replace an existing garage and carport, both on the north side of the lot. The carport currently in place intrudes into the side yard, but is sub stantially smaller than the one being proposed� the east-west dimension will increase fr om 13.5 feet to 40 feet. The requested variance is for a side yard of 1.2 feet which is slightly le ss than the current setb ack. The impact on the residence to the north should be minimal, because it has an adequate side yard. It is recommended the new carp ort be opened on three sides and not be enclosed. Staff fe els that the owner has provided justification for the req uested variances and supports both. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of both the rear and side yard variances with the conditions that the new construction not exceed the dimensions provided on the survey and that the carport be le ft opened on three sides. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-17-84) The applicant was not present. A motion was made to defer the item to the January 21, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. ( January 21, 1985 Item No. A -Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-21-85) The ap plicant was represented by Randy White. There were no objectors present. Mr. White indicated that the owner agreed with the staff's recomm endation. A motion was made to grant the variance, subject to the garage being left open on three sides and that the new construction not exceed the dimensions provided on the survey. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. f L- January 21, 1985 Item No. B -Z-3977 Owner: Baird, Inc. Address: 2711 West Markham Description: Lots 21 and 22, Block 4, Young's Park Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Comm ercial Request: Reconsideration of previous variance approval in March of 1983 Present Use of the Property: 7-11 Store Proposed Use of the Property: Same {reconstruction) STAFF REPORT: The request before the Board of Adjustment is to reconsider a variance approval that was granted in March of 1983. A period of more than one year has gone by wi thout a building permit being issued, so the Board of Adjustment must again act on the request. In March 1983, the Southland Corporation applied for two variances for the 7-11 Store located at the sout heast corner of West Markham and Pearl. The variances were for a 10-foot rear yard to construct a new building and a 6 and 8-foot encroachment int o the northwest yards for a new canopy. It is the staff's understanding that there have been no changes to the previous submitted construction plans and the Southland Corporation would li ke to proceed wi th the project as had been approved. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the reconsideration request be approved. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: {12-17-84) The applicant was not present. A motion was made to grant the approval, but it failed to receive a second. Another motion was made to de fer the matter to the January 21, 1985, meeting. That motion passed by a vo te of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. ( u January 21, 1985 Item No. B -z-3977 -Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-21-85) The applicant, John Nichols, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Nichols spoke brief ly about the request. A motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. l January 21, 1985 Item No. 1 -Z-4385 Owner: Doug Wood Address: 2500 North Grant Description: Lot 7 and South 1/2 of Lot 8, Block 28, Parkview Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit an addition with a 3-foot setback (ordinance requires 7 feet) JUSTIFICATION: Maintaining the architectural integrity of the existing structure Present Use of the Property: Single Family Proposed Use of the Property: Same with an addition STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues None reported as of this writing. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a 26-foot by 38-foot addiition for a den and garage. The existing structure is 5 feet from the property line, which is also an encroachment, so if the new construction maintained the 5-foot setback, a variance would be required because ofthe expansion aspect. The owner has stated that the2-foot offset is needed so the addition will not look"added on" and keep the structure "architecturallypleasing." Brick will be used and, because of theproblems of trying to match the old and new, a break inthe building line will allow the change in brick colorto be less noticeable. This does not represent a truehardship, but it is adequate justifiction forrequesting a variance. In addition, because of the January 21, 1985 Item No. 1 -Continued garage, there are some limitations on the location for the addition. There will be adequate separation between this structure and the residence to the south because of "W" Street and there will be no impact on the property to the west. One minor concern staff would like to raise is that autos turning into and backing out of the new garage have an adequate area to make the necessary movements. It ap pears that this should not present a problem. Staff supports the request, but does recommend that no additional involvement such as large planting occur in the side yard that could block visibility for vehicles using the garage. C.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends ap proval of the variance, subject to the comments made in Staff Analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Staff indicated to the Board of Adjustment that the owner had not properly notified the property owners wit hin the required 200 feet. A motion was made to defer the item to the February 11, 1985, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ( January 21, 1985 Item No. 2 -Z-4387 Owner: Kent and Mary Ann Da vidson 3901 Oakwood Road Ad dress: Description: Lot 3, Block 3, Oakwood Place Addition Zoned: "R-3" Single Family Variance Requested: From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 7-101 .3/D.3 to permit an addition with an 11-foot rear yard (ordinance requires 25 feet) JUSTIFICATION: Lot configuration and structural limitations Present Use of the Property: Single Family Proposed Use of the Property: Same with addition STAFF REPORT: A.Engineering Issues None reported at this time. B.Staff Analysis The proposed addition will consist of bathroom/dressingroom and screened porch. This particular location waschosen because of being adjacent to the bedroom, andthe only portion of the lot providing adequate area forthe proposed expansion. Because of the structuralrestriction and the lot configuration, a hardship doesexist. The existing structure is sited on the lot insuch a manner that it is only 1.8 feet from the rearproperty line and has adequate side yards. Theproposed addition will have little or no impact onresidences on the adjoining lots because adequateseparation will be maintained. Staff supports thevariance because a hardship does exist and the ownerhas proposed the most reasonable option for theexpansion. ( u January 21, 1985 Item No. 2 -Continued 3.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. The request was discussed briefly by the Board of Adjustment. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The mo tion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. ( \ January 21, 1985 Item No. 3 -Z-4389 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: Hooper Bond Fund III Limited Shacklef ord Drive (West Markham at Shackleford Road, northwest corner} Lot 7, Hooper Bond Ad dition "C-3" General Commercial From the height provisions of Section 7-103.3/C to permit construction of a 75-foot off ice building (ordinance requires 35 feet} 1.The present zoning classification of "C-3" does notprovide for high rise development of any nature. 2.The location of the tract is relatively remote andcannot be seen from West Markham or Shackleford Road. 3.Ozark National Life Insurance Company is a small butgrowing life insurance company owned and operated byArkansans and needs all the exposure and recognition itcan get. 4.First Commercial Bank must, of course, remain highlyvisible so it can be found by its customers. 5.The additional building height will result inadditional land area for required parking, six drive-inlanes for bank customers and holding or stacking spacesfor more than 24 cars. 6.We feel that this is the best location for a projectwhich will be compatible with the existingdevelopment. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Office Building ( January 21, 1985 Item No. 3 -Continued STAFF REPORT A. B. Engineering Issues As of this writing, no issues have been reported. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a 6-story office building on a tract of land at the northwest corner of the intersection of West Markham and Shackleford. This general location has a mix of various commercial uses and some office development with an office use abutting this property to the east. The primary office development in the area is occurring east of I-430 and to the south at I-630 and Shackleford where some mid-rise office construction has taken place. This particular piece of property is zoned "C-3" General Commercial, and the owner has expressed this as a justification for the variance. "C-3" classifictaion has a 35-foot height limit, which does appear to create a hardship for office development on the lot. In both the "O-2" and "O-3" districts, the ordinance permits additional height to a maximum of 60 feet in "O-3" and 120 feet in "0-2" if the setbacks are increased proportionately. The "C-3" District does not have this provision and 35 feet is the maximum. The proposed Site Plan shows substantial setback, so some additional height could probably be gained in one of the office districts. The two existing office buildings in this development are only single story. Because of the site being higher than the other corners of the intersection, the proposed building will be very visible, but staff believes the impact should be minimal. The rear property line of the residential development to the north is approximately 380 feet from the building and is on higher ground. The proposed setbacks for buildings should help reduce any adverse effects on other developments in the immediate vicinity. Staff feels that the "C-3" classification does create a hardship and does support the variance with two conditions: (1) the utility easement and the existing tree line along the south property line not be disturbed and (2) a permanent prohibi tion on access to Markham. C.Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends appr oval of the height variance,subject to the conditions of the Staff Analysis. January 21, 1985 Item No. 3 -Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present and represented by Wes Lowder, an engineer with the Mehlburger firm. There were three objectors present. Mr. Lowder spoke and discussed so me of the issues associated with the request. I.F. Jones of Ozark Life described the plans for the First Commercial Branch Bank and discussed the tree removal. He said that was done by a contractor doing site work on the en tire tr act. Mr. Jones also said that Ozark Life could only use the property with a 6-story building. There was additional discussion about the site work and the str eet construction taking place. Mr. Jones then indicated that Ozark Life would be agreeable to planting additional tr ees and having the City approve a la ndscaping plan. George Williams of the Beverly Hills addition spoke in opposition to the request. He said that the exi sting traffic problems on Shackleford and Markham would get worse. He felt that the tr affic problems should be so lved prior to new development occurring in the area. Mr. Williams also said that the proposed height would decrease property values and other property owners in the neighborhood were strongly opposed to the request. Karen Murphy spoke briefly and voiced similar concerns. Mr. Lowder said the proposed building would be aproximately 30 to 35 feet higher than the Beverly Hills Addition, and he briefly discussed the tr affic con cerns. There was a lo ng discussion about the height and costs of construction. The building would have ap proximately 70,000 square feet, 12,000 square feet per floor, and Ozark Life would occupy about 5,000 square feet. C.J. Cropper spoke for Ozark Life and discussed the traffic issue. He said that the congestion could be impacted more heavily by the permitted uses in the "C-3" district. At this point, Mr. Lowder presented a sketch of the proposed building. Mr. Williams spoke ag ain and addressed the various points. A motion was made to approve the height va riance with two conditions: (1) a permit prohibition on ac cess to Markham and (2) staff review the landscaping plan prior to the building permit being issued. The vote: 4 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. The motion fa iled due to a la ck of 5 affirmative votes and the variance was denied. ( January 21, 1985 Item No. 4 -Z-4390 Owner: Greg and Cindy Feltus 4800 Cr estwood Ad dress: Description: Lot 48, Cliffwood Ad dition "R-2" Single Family Zoned: Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit an addition with 2.5-foot side yard JUSTIFICATION: Internal structural and lot configuration and the existing structure's position on the lot Present Use of the Property: Single Family Proposed Use of the Property: Same with addition STAFF REPORT: A. B. Engineering Issues None reported. Staff Analysis The requested variance is to allow an addition with a 2.5 setback. The ordinance requires a side yard of approximately 7.5 feet in this situation. The addition will be for kitchen expansion, so that does place some restrictions on where the new construction can take place. The owner has used lot configuration and the structure's position on the lot as justification for the variance, and it appears that both of those do create a hardship. If the residence was situated on the lot so the existing building line was parallel with the west property line, a side yard variance would not be necessary for the addition as proposed. Being on a corner lot, the addition will have little, if any, impact on the adjoining properties. Even with a January 21, 1985 Item No. 4 -Continued 2.5-foot setback, there will be adequate separation between the new addition and the residence to the west because of the driveway. Staff supports the request because of the hards hip and limitations on the location of the addition. c.Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as fi led. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. The request was di scussed br iefly by the Board. A motion was made to approve the variance as fi led. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. ( January 21, 1985 Item No. 5 -Z-4391 Owner: First Co mmercial Bank East 9th Street at I-30 Address: De scription: Lots 1, 2, 3, 11 and 12, Block 12, Woodruff's Ad dition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7-103.3/D.2 to permit a new building with side yards of 9.5 feet and 18.5 feet (ordinance requires 25 feet) JUSTIFICATION: 1.The proposed structure is further back from theright-of-way lines than the existing bank. 2.The I-30 acquisition has created a narrow site, toonarrow for 25-foot setbacks. Present Use of the Property: Branch bank Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A.Engineering Issues None reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is replace the existing branch bank with anew structure. The present facility is located on thesouthern one-half of the property, situated right onthe east property line. The current drive-throughtellers are located to the south of the building, andthis is not the most ideal situation for trafficmovement and circulation. The new structure will bemore centrally located on the site and be animprovement over the existing conditions because ofincreasing the setback on the east side and upgradingthe site's circulation. The drive-through tellers will ( January 21, 1985 Item No. 5 -Z-4391 be located to the north of the proposed building, which will be a more desirable location than the current one. The new site plan makes better use of the tract that has been impacted by I-30 and having street frontage on three sides. The ordinance requires that on a corner lot, the side yard on the street side or exterior side shall be equal to the front yard setback. Because of I-30 right-of-way, it is impossible to maintain therequired setbacks on the three sides. Staff supports the variance because the applicant has provided adequate justification, and a hardship does exist. One additional point, the existing structure will be removed after the new building is completed. C.Staff Recommen dation Staff rec ommends approval of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Bill Ruck, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Ruck spoke briefly about the request. A motion was made to approve the variance, sugbject to the building location being clarified for the wastewater ut ility and the Traffic Engineer's approval of access, parking, curb cuts and circulation. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. ( January 21 , 1985 Item No. 6 -Z-4299-A -Interpretation Owner: Address: De scription: Zoned: Request: STAFF REPORT: Paul Birnbach, Jr. (Little Rock Quarry Co.) 8300 East Kellett Road Long Legal "R-2" Single Family Determining if the property had a nonconforming use on it prior to adoption of the East River Is land Zoning Plan The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to determine if the property at 8300 Kellett Road had a nonconforming use on it prior to the adoption of the East River Is land Zoning Plan on April 17, 1984. The area included in the plan was rezoned to "R-2." The City exercised its planning authority in this area under the State's River Zoning Provision, because the property is outside the City limits. This provision gives the City land use jurisdiction over properties within two miles of the Arkansas Ri ver. In June 1984, the Little Rock Quarry Company was issued a notice that they were operating an industrial use, a rock loading facility, on land zoned "R-2." The City had determined that the Quarry Company had moved from one site to the one in question. At that time, Li ttle Rock Quarry Company was given the option of ceasing the operation or applying for rezoning. They chose to apply for an "I-3" reclassification. On August 28, 1984, the Planning Co mmission held a public hearing on the "I-3" request. The City's Enforcement Office stated at the hearing that the rock loading facility was a new operation and had not been in existence at the location prior to April 1984. A spokesman for the Li ttle Rock Quarry Company said that the loading of barges started in October 1983, and should be allowed to continue as a nonconforming use. Because the Planning Co mmission does not have the power to rule on a nonconforming use, the applicant withdrew the request from the agenda. It was suggested at that time that the nonconforming issue should be resolved. ( January 21, 1985 Item No. 6 -Continued The Little Rock Quarry Company is now requesting the Board of Adjustment to make a deter mination on the nonconforming status of the use. They have submitted documents indicating that the use was in existence prior to April 15, 1984. The City's En forcement Office has been requested to provide the Planning staff with a summary of their file on the matter. This information will be available for the public hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is not prepared to make a recommendation at this time. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: There was no representative of the Little Rock Quarry Company present at the hearing. Jim Hathcock of the City's Environmental Codes Division, was present. Mr. Hathcock read a resolution, No. 5,810, which addressed the City's la nd use jurisdiction along the Arkansas Ri ver and discussed the en forcement aspect of the issue before the Board. There was some discussion about the intent of a resolution. Mr. Carpenter of the City Attorney's Office said that a resolution is just policy and doesn't carry the weig ht of an ordinance. The Board of Adjustment requested the City Attorney's Office to research this issue. A motion was made to defer the item to the Februry 11th meeting. The motion passed by a vote of: 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. (� January 21, 1985 There being no further business before the Board, the meetin g was adjourned at 3:25 p.m. Date