boa_12 17 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTE RECORD
DECEMBER 17, 1984
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: George Wells
Ellis Walton
Richard Yada
Joe Norcross
B.L. Murphree
Thomas McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Members absent: Ronald Woods
(1 Position Vacant)
City Attorney: Phyllis Carter
December 17, 1984
Item No. 1 - Z-4379
Owner: Standard Office Systems of Arkansas,
Inc.
Address: 1325 East 9th Street
Description: Lots 3 and 4, Block 2, A.C. Read
Addition
Zoned: "I -2" Light Industrial
Variance
Requested: 1. From the side yard setback
provisions of Section 7- 104.2/E.1 to
permit a new building with a 2 -foot
setback (ordinance requires 15 feet)
2. From the rear yard setback
provisions of Section 7- 104.2/E.3 to
permit a new building with a 2 -foot
rear yard (ordinance requires 25 feet)
JUSTIFICATION:
Maintain adequate parking required for business.
Present Use
of the Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of the Property: Same
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
Engineering reported no adverse comments.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to remove an existing building and
replace it with a new 40 x 90 foot structure which is
slightly larger than the building to be demolished.
The existing structure has no rear yard setback and the
current side yard is approximately 3 feet, so the
proposed variance will maintain the existing setbacks
for the most part. The old structure is in substandard
condition and replacing it with a new building will be
an improvement for the property. A true hardship does
December 17, 1984
Item No. 1 - Continued
not exist, but providing an adequate parking area and
not significantly changing the existing setbacks are
legitimate justifications for a variance. The current
intrusions into the side and rear setbacks appear to
have had little or no impact on the adjacent
properties, and it is anticipated that this will not
change with the encroachments of the new structure.
The staff does support the variance with the condition
that Shall Street adjacent to this site be improved to
proper standards.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance
with the condition that the portion of Shall Street
lacking the necessary improvements be upgraded.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Craig Torrence, was present. There were no
objectors. Mr. Torrence indicated that the owners had
agreed with the staff's recommendation for street
improvements for a portion of Shall Street. After a brief
discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance with
the condition that street improvements are undertaken for
Shall Street. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes
and 1 absent.
December 17, 1984
Item No. 2 - Z-4380
Owner: Jitu Patel
Address: 5620 South University
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance
Requested: From the height and area exception
provisions of Section 5-101 /F.2.D to
permit a satellite receiving dish
between the principal structure and the
street right-of-way.
JUSTIFICATION:
1. It can't be located in the parking lot because it is
leased to the restaurant and could easily be hit by an
auto.
2. It can't be located on the north side of the building
out of the parking lot because it would be isolated
form the motel and office and a prime target for
vandalism.
3. It can't be installed in the motel parking lot because
there is only adequate parking for the motel customers
as is, and the satellite dish would take up two or
three parking spaces.
4. It can't be located in the pool area because the
reception is very poor and it would be an unsafe
location for persons using the pool.
5. It can't be located on the roof due to the weight of
the dish and the age of the building. It could cause
structural damage.
Present Use
of the Property: Motel
Proposed Use
of the Property: Motel
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None.
December 17, 1984
Item No. 2 - Continued
B. Staff Analysis
This variance request is the result of an enforcement
action by the City because the owner of the motel
placed the satellite dish prior to receiving proper
approval from the Board of Adjustment. The applicant
has provided a number of reasons for why the dish
cannot be located at another location on the property,
but they do not completely justify the area where the
dish is now placed. Granted, this is the most
desirable location from a convenience standpoint, but
that does not necessarily mean it is the best or only
location. After viewing the property with all its
improvements, staff believes that there is another
possible site for placing the dish that is not totally
isolated, but also is not as visible from University
Avenue. Staff proposes that the northwest corner of
the property (the north parking area) be utilized for
the dish. The location has the needed visibility for
security reasons and can be protected from autos by
properly installed wheel stops. Also, if vandalism is
a problem, a fence could be erected to discourage
potential vandals.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends denial of the requested variance and
suggests the alternate location as provided in the
staff analysis.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
The applicant, Jitu Patel, was present. There were no
objectors in attendance. Mr. Patel discussed the variance
and other possible locations at length. The Board held a
long discussion on the various options. Kenny Scott of the
City staff addressed the enforcement aspect of the request.
Mr. Patel again spoke and disucssed his concerns and what he
saw as problems with the staff's recommendation. A motion
was then made to deny the requested variance. The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The
variance was denied.
December 17, 1984
Item No. 3 - Z-4381
Owner: Junius B. and Sarah R. Cross
Address: 2118 North Palm Street
Description: Lot 5, Block 5, Country Club Heights
Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: 1. From the rear yard setback
provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 to
permit an addition with a 22.1 foot
setback (ordinance requires 25 feet)
2. From the side yard setback
provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to
permit an addition with a 1.2 foot
setback (ordinance requires 5 feet)
JUSTIFICATION:
1. This property is in an older area of the city where
many variances have already been exercised similar to
these, plus many such variances were done prior to the
present code requirements.
2. The properties to either side and across the alley have
structures closer to the lines and alley easement than
here requested in some instances.
3. The architect who planned the variances is a neighbor
who is expertly familiar with accepted variances in the
area and developed the plans for me with this in mind.
4. The remodeling job is underway, and we are approaching
the part of the construction that the variances affect,
and the weather is degenerating rapidly for this type
of project, the delay of which would be costly spoilage
of construction already done. Also, work outdoors in
winter would be a physical hardship on labor, etc.,
increasing costs of construction considerably.
Present Use
of Property: Single Family Residence.
Proposed Use
of Property: Same with expansion.
December 17, 1984
Item No. 3 - Continued
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None.
B. Staff Analysis
The proposal is to construct a new 32 x 38 foot
addition at the rear of the existing residence and a
carport on the north side of the house. The proposed
carport will be approximately 11.5 feet by 40 feet.
The new construction will almost double the size of the
existing floor space and with an addition of that size,
there are few alternatives other than adding a second
story or encroaching into the required yard area. Even
with the addition of this size, the encroachment 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 staff believes that this is a minor
concern. An existing accessory building will be
removed so that will open up the area somewhat. 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 substantially smaller than the one being
proposed; the east -west dimension will increase from
13.5 feet to 40 feet. The requested variance is for a
side yard of 1.2 feet which is slightly less than the
current setback. The impact on the residence to the
north should be minimal, because it has an adequate
side yard. It is recommended the new carport be opened
on three sides and not be enclosed. Staff feels that
the owner has provided justification for the requested
variances and supports both.
C. 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 left opened on three
sides.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
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.
December 17, 1984
Item No. 4 - Z-3977
Owner: Baird, Inc.
Address: 2711 West Markham
Description: Lots 21 and 22, Block 4, Young's
Park Addition
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
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 without 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 southeast 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 into 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 like to proceed with the
project as had been approved.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the reconsideration request be
approved.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
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 defer the matter to the January 21, 1985,
meeting. That motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
December 17, 1984
Item No. 5 (Interpretive Issue)
Request: To interpret the zoning ordinance
definition of a home occupation and how
it applies to a single person real
estate office operating out of a
residence.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Roger Frank, 15 Warwick, was present. Mr. Frank was the
individual who made this request because of enforcement
action. Staff reviewed the issue and reminded the Board of
Adjustment to only address real estate offices in general
terms. Kenny Scott of the Enforcement Office discussed the
sign issue and suggested a possible amendment to the sign
ordianance because of the problem between the City's
regulations and the State's Real Estate Licensing Board's
requirement. Jack Fink, representing Mr. Frank, then spoke
and indicated that Mr. Frank has only had one visitor over
the last few months. Mr. Scott explained that his office
had received a complaint from a neighbor and the matter
became an enforcement issue. After a long discussion, a
motion was made that the real estate office described during
the public hearing falls within the home occupation
definition of the zoning ordinance, but the Board of
Adjustment does not pass judgment on the sign issue. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 17, 1984
Item No. 6 - Interpretation
Applicant: Gene Lewis
Location: Dace Plaza Subdivision area at the
NE Corner of Shackleford Road and
Interstate 430
Request: To review paragraph 6 of Section
7-102.2 B.6 being development criteria
for "0 -2" Office and Institutional
District, for application to an
interstate highway. The question posed
is does an "O-2" Office District project
taking access from Shackleford Road need
to provide the 25-foot landscape strip
along the adjacent interstate
right-of-way.
INFORMATION BASE
1. The subject paragraph:
"B.6. - A 25-foot landscaped strip parallel to and
abutting any boundary street shall be provided and
maintained by the owners and in which no parking of
wheeled vehicles shall be allowed."
2. The definition of "street" from the Zoning Ordinance,
Section 2-102.A.71 (page 16):
"71. Street: A publicly maintained right-of-way other
than an alley which affords a primary means of access
to property."
3. The definition of "right-of-way, public" from the
Zoning Ordinance, Section 2-102.A.69:
"69. Right-of-way, public: An area of land deeded
reserved by plat or otherwise accepted and maintained
by the City, the County or the State for public use."
STAFF ANALYSIS:
This issue has arisen on several occasions and on each the
project changed or was abandoned prior to resolution of the
question.
In this instance, the developer proposes to locate two
parking lots which intrude within the 25-foot strip. The
Planning Commission Subdivision Committee briefly discussed
the matter at its last meeting as part of an "O-2" site plan
December 17, 1984
Item No. 6 - Continued
review. This review is to be held on December 18 at the
next regular Planning Commission meeting which follows by
one day the Board of Adjustment hearing. Therefore, there
is some urgency in making the determination as to
applicability of the requirements.
The Subdivision Committee questioned its position relative
to issuance of a variance of the requirements. As a result
of the staff and committee discussions, it was determined
that the Board of Adjustment should review and interpret the
requirement and attending definitions for applicability in
all future cases.
The staff views this as a general interpretation of the
ordinance and would apply the results to all like kinds of
cases in the future. There is sufficient doubt in our minds
as to applicability that we feel the ordinance views an
interstate as other than a boundary street. We feel the
setback requirement of 25' adjacent to the freeway is clear
and unquestionable. This is not based on the definition of
street as all setbacks in the "O-2" district are 25'.
However, we do feel that the landscape strip is subject to
question.
The general opinion stated above is based on the key words
of "boundary street" which are defined as affording a
primary access. The interstate in every respect does not
afford access to adjacent lands.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Gene Lewis was present. Richard Wood of the Planning staff
discussed the issue and indicated that the landscaping strip
should be maintained but that there was some flexibility in
the ordinance. Mr. Lewis spoke and described the specific
site in question. The Board discussed the various issues at
length. A motion was made to define interstates as not
providing a primary means of access and not meeting the
zoning ordinance's definition of a boundary street. Also,
because of this interpretation, buffers were not necessary
along interstate frontage. The motion was approved by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
December 17, 1984
There being no further business before the Board, the
meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
Date
Secretary Chairman