Loading...
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