Loading...
boa_09 17 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE.RECORD SEPTEMBER 17, 1984 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being six in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: George Wells B.L. Murphee Joe Norcross Thomas McGowan Herbert Rideout Ellis Walton Members Absent: Richard Yada Steve Smith Ronald Woods City Attorney: Patricia Benton September 17, 1984 Item No. 1 - Z-4311 Owner: Roger C. and Elsie W. Mears Address: 5711 S. Country Club Description: Lot 100, Forest Heights Place Add. Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7- 101.2/D.2 to permit a building addition with a 3.5 -foot setback. (Ordinance requires 8 feet.) JUSTIFICATION: Internal structural configurations or unusual lot configurations. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence Propose Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None have been reported at this time. B. Staff Analvsis The proposal is to construct a 10' x 11.5' addition to the rear of the residence. This new construction will provide additional space and a needed closet for a bedroom. The expansion will extend the existing building line. The interior configuration of the structure appears to restrict the expansion except to the south as is proposed. Also, the structure is located much closer to the west property line so that creates the need for a variance. The addition will still provide an adequate rear yard, and there will be good separation between it and the residence to the west so any impact from the expansion will be minimal. Because the additional room is needed at this particular location, any exterior construction would require a variance. The staff feels the variance is justified and supports the reduced side yard. September 17, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. September 17, 1984 Item No. 2 - Z-4312 Owner: Patrick J. Booth Address: 1900 Cantrell Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I -3" Heavy Industrial Variance Requested: 1. From the front yard setback provisions of Section 7-104/3.D.1 to permit a setback of 25 feet. (Ordinance requires 50 feet.) 2. From the floodplain restrictions of Paragraph (a) of Paragraph (4) of Section B of Article 5 of Ordinance No. 14,534 to permit a new building to be constructed with floor elevation 2 feet below that required. JUSTIFICATION: 1. To keep new building as far away from Rose Creek because of soil conditions and bank erosion. 2. No direct access is possible from front yard to Cantrell because of the overpass. 3. Existing buildings to the east are closer to the property line than the 25 feet requested. 4. Arkansas Highway Department has no plans for widening Cantrell. 5. The 25-foot variance is necessary to allow the new building to connect to the existing building. 6. A 50-foot front yard would serve no aesthetic purpose since it is not visible from Cantrell. Present Use of Property: Boat Maintenance and Repair Facility Proposed Use of Property: Same as above with covered boat storage. September 17, 1984 Item No. 2 - Continued STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No specific comments have been provided as of this writing. The Engineering staff will discuss the floodplain variance at the public hearing. B. Staff Analvsis Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has provided proper justifications, including keeping the new building as far as possible from the creek because of soil conditions and bank erosion for the requested variance. The Ordinance requies a 50-foot front yard setback so encroachment of 25 feet is substantial, but this will create virtually no problems because the new building will be below the road surface level of Cantrell Road. This is assuming that the structure will be one-story. The building will be facing the supports for the Cantrell Road overpass and an undeveloped area to the south. The proposed location will also limit the visibility of the building. The creek's path does create a hardship for the site because it restricts possible locations for a building. A majority of the property is located within the 100-Year Floodplain, including the site of the proposed building. Only the southeast corner of the property is excluded from the floodplain. The specifics of the floodplain variance will be addressed by the Engineering staff. The staff is in support of both variances because a hardship does exists. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the two requested variances as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Sam Davis, was present. There were no objectors present. Mike Batie of the City's Engineering staff spoke and discussed the floodplain variance. He stated that Engineering supported the request provided that all electrical, plumbing, motors, etc., be either elevated above or floodproofed to 258.2 feet. Mr. Davis then spoke and expressed no concerns with the recommendation. A motion was made to approve both variances with the condition that all electrical, plumbing, motors, etc., be elevated or floodproofed to 258.2 feet. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. September 17, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z-4313 Owner: Mr. and Mrs. C.R. Thompson Address: 1924 Allis Street Description: Lot 13, Block 4, Chickasaw Place Add. Zoned: "R -3" Single Family Variance Requested: From the front yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.3 /D.1 to permit a room addition with a 16' 4" setback. (Ordinance requires 25 feet.) JUSTIFICATION: 1. Need for additional area. 2. Proposed expansion will enchance the present structure. 3. It will conform to a similar projection on an adjacent residence. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues No issues have been reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis Even though a substantial hardship has not been offered, the potential for expansion without any type of variance is very limited. From a site visit, it appears that the proposed location is the most desirable and will have a minimal impact on the surrounding residences or the block. Allis Street is a minor residential street, and the block between West 19th and West 20th already has other encroachments into the front yard setback. A majority of these are open porches, but there are one or two residences with enclosed additions. The block face has already experienced some disruption, so the granting of the September 17, 1984 Item No. 3 - Continued requested variance will not set a new precedent or create any significant problems for the neighborhood. The setback to the property line is a little over 16 feet but to the street, it is approximately 23 feet. Staff feels that the variance is justified and supports the request. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. A brief discussion was held on the request. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 4 absent. September 17, 1984 Item No. 4 - Z-4315 Owner: James Calvin Address: 423 Bond Street Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 14 Garland Addition Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance Requested: From the mobile home provisions of Section 3-101 /C.l.d to permit a mobile home for security purposes. JUSTIFICATION: Applicant operated a food service business at a nearby location for a number of years and has been the victim of five burglaries at that location. Present Use of Property: Restaurant Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None have been reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analvsis The requested variance is to allow the applicant to place a mobile home on the site of a restaurant for security purposes. At a previous location, the applicant experienced a number of break -ins and now is of the belief that only a 24-hour guard on the premises will help solve this problem. There is no question that a hardship does exists, and the request is justified. But, staff is concerned with the proposed location of the trailer. The trailer would be very visible from all directions and only have a 2 feet setback from the south property line. Staff does not feel this is desirable for the neighborhood and recommends that the trailer be shifted to the east. A more suitable location would be between the existing service drive and the east property line. This should lessen the impact of the trailer and also allow for September 17, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued a greater setback along East Capitol. Staff believes that this location and some landscaping or buffering would reduce the visibility of the trailer. One final recommendation is for a fence to be constructed along the east property line if one is not currently in place. This fence should be opaque and 6 feet in height. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the placement of the mobile home subject to the comments made in the staff's analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, James Calvin, was present. There were no persons in attendance objecting to the request. Staff reviewed the conditions of the approval: (1) the trailer being relocated to the east, (2) a fence be constructed along the east property line and (3) the trailer be restricted to security purposes only and not be rented for residential use. Mr. Calvin then discussed the various locations and the size of the trailer. He said that the size of the trailer shown on the site plan was incorrect. Mr. Calvin stated that his plans were to place a 14' x 50' trailer on the site, not an 8' x 40' one as shown on the site plan. There was a lengthy discussion about the size issue. Mr. Calvin felt that a large trailer could not be placed at the location proposed by the staff and properly work. He also indicated that he never intended to use an 8' x 40' trailer and was not sure why that size was represented on the plan. Because of the size conflict and other uncertainties, a motion was made to defer the request to the October 22, 1984, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 17, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z-4316 Owner: Danny Starling Address: 223 Fountain Street Description: Lots 26 and 27, Block 1, Young's Park Addition Zoned: "R-3" Single Family Variance Requested: 1. From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.3/D.3 to permit an addition with an 18 -foot rear yard. (Ordinance requires 25 feet.) 2. From the height and area provisions of Section 5-101 /F.2.b to permit an accessory structure with a 1 -foot separation. (Ordinance requires a 6-foot separation.) JUSTIFICATION: The natural lay of the property and unable to build on the side due to a retaining wall on the property and no entrance to the structure. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Enqineerinq Issues None to report at this writing. B. Staff Analysis Currently, at the rear of the structure, there is a one -story addition, and the proposal is to replace this with a new two -story expansion. The proposed addition will be the same width as what is in place so an encroachment does presently exist. The new construction will be increased in length which will expand the amount of intrusion into the rear yard. It does appear that adding onto the rear is the only September 17, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued feasible solution for expansion because of the retaining wall to the north and a grade difference to the south. Staff believes that a hardship does exist, and because of these constraints supports the requested variance. One concern that staff does have is the amount of structural involvement between the residence and the alley. Because the addition will substantially expand what is there and the existing garage being in disrepair, it is recommended that the garage be removed and relocated. In addition to the structure, s large portion of the rear yard is paved with a hard surface. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance with the condition that the existing garage be removed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Danny Starling, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Starling spoke and addressed the issue of the garage. He said that the garage was being used for storage and that he had some problems with moving the garage to another location. Mr. Starling said that the garage could not be relocated to the south because he did not own the lot but was attempting to acquire it and that other locations were impractical. There was a lengthy discussion about the garage. Several Board of Adjustment members suggested that the existing structure be replaced with another type of building that could be used for storage. Another idea offered was to remove the garage and attach a new building to the proposed addition. Mr. Starling then modified the application to delete the variance request for the 1 -foot separation and connect the addition to the accessory building. A motion was made to approve the variance for the two -story addition with the condition that the existing garage be remove and relocated to the adjacent lot or a new building be constructed and attached to the proposed addition. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 17, 1984 Item No. 6 - Z-4317 Owner: City of Little Rock Address: 821 West 14th Description: Lot 1, Block 234, Original City 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 a 10 -foot side yard. (Ordinance requires 25 feet.) JUSTIFICATION: The lot is 47.96 feet wide and with the 25-foot setback, the workable width is approximately 23 feet. This is not a sufficient width to build an efficient building. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Locksmith Shop STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues No issues have been identified as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The property is a typical residential lot zoned "C-3" General Commercial. With the setbacks required for "C-3," placing a building on the site would be impossible without some type of variance. A 25-foot setback is required for both the Izard and West 14th side so that virtually makes the lot unusable unless encroachment is permitted into one of the yards. As the building is being proposed, it should not present any problems for the neighborhood. Staff feels that a strong hardship does exists and supports the variance. New construction for the area is seen as a positive step and should be encouraged. Staff is concerned with the proposed parking layout, especially the three spaces on the Izard Street side. After carefully reviewing the proposal, staff recommends that the three September 17, 1984 Item No. 6 - Continued spaces on the west side be removed and incorporated with the parking area to the east of the building. It appears that there is enough area at this location to accommodate the six spaces. If not, staff would support the building being constructed closer to Izard Street to gain any needed area for parking. One of the concerns with the parking on the west side is the necessary curb cut on Izard and its distance from the intersection. There is also some doubt that the Traffic Engineer could support this type of parking plan. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the comments made in the staff analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Bill Monk, was present. There were no objectors present. Staff discussed the proposed parking as recommended in the staff analysis. Mr. Monk stated he had no problems with locating all the parking on the east side of the building. A motion was made to approve the side yard variance subject to all the necessary parking being located east of the building. Also, the Board of Adjustment recommended that a 5 -foot encroachment in the front yard would be permitted if problems arise with the needed area for parking. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 17, 1984 Item No. 7 - Z-4319 Owner: John T. Skowronski Address: 1923 Alden Lane Description: Lot 12, Block 3, Forest Park Addition Zoned: "R -4" Two Family Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7- 101.4/D.2 to permit a room addition with a 6 -foot side yard. (Ordinance requirement is 8 feet.) JUSTIFICATION: The width of the lot being only 40 feet and the proposed addition will maintain the existing building line. Present Use of Property: Single Family Residence Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None have been reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a small addition that will expand the existing north and east building lines. There is definite hardship because of the width of the lot being only 40 feet and the existing "R-4" Two Family zoning which requires an 8 -foot side yard. If the lot was zoned "R-3" Small Lot Single Family, the required setback would be 4 feet and a variance would not be necessary. One minor question that staff would like to raise is whether there will be an entry point at this location. If there is to be one, will it be on the north or east side? Currently, there is a door on the north side. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the request of the variance as filed. September 17, 1984 Item No. 7 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 17, 1984 Item No. 8 - Z-4320 Owner: Arkansas Power and Light Company Address: 200 North Arch Street Description: Part of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Block 122 and all of fractional Block 180, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance Requested: From the front yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-104.2.E.1 to permit a new structure to encroach upon the required setback of 50 feet. JUSTIFICATION: 1. Insufficient side area for updated and increased capacity power substation to meet Downtown's need. 2. Screening provided for substation yard. 3. Historical adjacent setback practices in the area. Present Use of Property: Electric Power Substation Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues No engineering issues have been identified as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The property in question is an AP &L substation located at the very north end of Arch Street. The site is bounded by Arch Street on the east, the MoPac railroad tracks on the north, Gaines Street on the west and LaHarpe Boulevard on the south; the property is below grade on the south side. The proposal is to construct a new switching yard and a control building with a 0 -foot setback from Arch Street. To allow for the September 17, 1984 Item No. 8 - Continued necessary equipment to meet the future power needs of the Downtown area, the proposed building location is the only feasible option. If the variance is not granted, the entire system and site will have to be redesigned at additional expense. In designing this type of facility, many factors come into play, including safety, and in the final analysis the proposed plan was the most functional and desirable. It should be pointed out that the proposed site plan is sensitive to the surrounding area, including the Riverfront Park which currently is located to the east. The park and a bicycle path are proposed to be extended to the west, north of this tract, and the plan shows an extensive planting of trees on the north side. Arch Street will also be landscaped, and the building will be designed so as to fit in the context of the immediate neighborhood. Considering location and being somewhat removed from the developed part of Downtown, staff supports the variance. Other buildings on Arch Street to the south are also constructed along the property lines. Staff does request that elevations of the proposed building be provided for review. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Tim Heiple, was present. There were no objectors present. There was some discussion about the overhang of the proposed building, and it was pointed out that the Board of Adjustment could not authorize any encroachment beyond the property line. Mr. Heiple stated that the attorneys for AP &L were studying the franchise right with the City to determine if that could apply to this situation. After additional comments were made, a motion was made to approve the 0-foot setback variance subject to the franchise issue being resolved. The first vote on the motion was 4 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 2 abstentions (Herbert Rideout and Ellis Walton). It was pointed out that five affirmative votes were needed to approve a variance. There was some discussion about the abstentions and then a second vote was taken. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Herbert Rideout). The variance was approved. September 17, 1984 Item No. 9 - Other Matters /Informational Item Owner: Richards, Inc. Address: 6620 South University Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-4" Open Display Issue: Construction of a fence between two similar uses. STAFF REPORT: On May 21, 1984, the Board of Adjustment approved two variances for Richards, Inc., to permit a reduced front yard setback and to allow open display in the first 20 feet of the property. Since that approval, Richards, Inc., submitted their site plan to the City for review and were instructed that a 6 -foot opaque screening fence would have to be constructed around the property. Section 7-103.4/B.4/B.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states that "No article or material stored or offered for sale in connection with the permitted or conditional use listed herein shall be stored or displayed outside the confines of a building unless it is so screened by a permanent opaque screening fence or wall so that it cannot be seen from an adjoining lot." Richards', Inc., understanding of the situation was that a screening fence would not be required on the north side because of common ownership and a chain link fence on the south property line. Also, the use on the tract to the south is an auto dealership zoned "C-4," and Richards, Inc., feels that it is unnecessary to screen one set of cars from another. A majority of this segment of University is used for auto sales lots. Because of these concerns, Richards, Inc., is requesting the Board of Adjustment to waive the fence requirement for their "C-4" property. (They have made this request in writing, and a copy of the letter will be provided to each member at the September 17th meeting.) Staff is not prepared to make a recommendation on the request at this time. September 17, 1984 Item No. 9 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Richards, Inc., was represented by Ron Boyeskie. The staff discussed the issue in some detail and suggested that the removal of the screening fence from the north and south property lines should not cause any problems. Staff stated that they supported the request. The motion was then made to modify the previous approval to waive the fencing requirements along the north and south property lines. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 17, 1984 Item No. 10 - Interpretative Issue The use at issue is a church which has a school on-site and whether a playground or parking lot constitutes an expansion of the use requiring a conditional use variance, etc. Staff will provide additional comments at the public hearing. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Richard Wood of the Planning staff discussed the issue which was what creates an expansion? He asked that the Board members give it some thought and be prepared to address the question. A representative of a church on Geyer Springs then spoke and presented some specifics about their situation. After a lengthy discussion, the Board requested the staff to research the issue and return in one month, the October 22, 1984, meeting, with additional information to possibly clarify the issue. September 17, 1984 There being no further business before the Board, the Chairman adjounted the meeting at 3:15 p.m. Date Secretary Chairman