Loading...
boa_10 20 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 20, 1986 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being 6 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Joe Norcross John McDaniel Ronald Woods Jim Mitchell Ronald Pierce Herbert Rideout Richard Yada (Item No. 4) Members Absent: Thomas McGowan (1 Open Position) City Attorney: None October 20, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z-3996-A Owner: Little Rock Alarm Company, Inc. Address: 217 North Chester Description: Lots 6 and 7, Block 352 W.B. Worthen's Addition Zoned: "O-3" and "R-5" Variances Requested: 1. From the area provisions of Section 7-102.3/d.1 and 3 to permit an addition with reduced front and rear yards. 2. From the off-street parking provisions of Section 8-101 /B.2 to permit less parking spaces than required by ordinance. Justification: We request that the variances be approved due to conditions at the present space. It would be a severe hardship to move all alarm receiving equipment now located at the present address. We monitor 95 percent of all high security locations in Little Rock and North Little Rock. We operate 24 hours a day and dispatch the Police and Fire Departments from this location. We are not open to the public, and there would be very little traffic in and out of this building. Present Use of Property: Office and Parking Proposed Use of Property: Office and Parking STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been reported as of this writing. October 20, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued B. Staff Analvsis The proposal is to add a second floor, approximately 4,500 square feet, to the existing structure. To accomplish the desired expansion, the owner has requested a setback variance for the rear and front yards. Also, a variance from the required number of parking spaces has been filed because of the increased floor area. Currently, the building is constructed to the side property lines and intrudes into the 15-foot rear yard. Some of this encroachment was accomplished in 1983 when the Board of Adjustment granted variances for an addition to the east and south sides of the structure. The new construction involves a stair addition in the rear and second floor that will be extended out over the front yard area which is being used for parking. The structural involvement on the north side will primarily consist of supports for the addition. The other construction in the front will maintain the 25-foot setback. Because of the area, the expansion with the required variances will not have an impact on the surrounding property and staff supports the setback encroachments. Staff also feels that a variance from the number of parking spaces is reasonable because of the nature of the business. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the setback and parking variances as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Raymond Branton, was present. There were no objectors. Staff indicated that AP &L had a concern with the proposed addition and that the owner or applicant needed to contact them. Mr. Branton then spoke. He said that the owner was working with AP &L and made several other comments. A motion was made to grant the variance as filed. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. October 20, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z-4676-B Owner: Professional Land Company Address: 3409 Baseline Road (at Hilaro Springs Road) Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-2" variance Requested: From the development criteria provisions of Section 7-103.2/B.5 to permit drives and parking within the 40-foot front yard setback. Justification: 1. To require a 40-foot landscape area would be to give up 27,200 square feet of parking and development area on an already narrow frontage corridor. The effect would be to eliminate 4,000 square feet of restaurant space and an additional 4,800 square feet of building in the anchoring section of the facilities, thus leaving an unusable plan for locating the tenants in the most opportune and advantageous area. An additional 20 -foot natural and landscaped buffer along with the required six -foot fence was conceded on the south and east sides of the site, which at the extreme places the buildings at 65 feet from the property line and the closest building is at 45 feet. This results in 10,642.5 square feet of additional property be dedicated to the beauty and privacy of the surrounding parties. 2. Due to the nature of the adjacent structures along Hilaro Springs Road, comprised of deeply set back residences and noncompliance commercial establishments, we feel that the 10 -foot landscape concession would be adequate when added to the unused right-of-way. October 20, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued This would give an area tapering from approximately 25 to 35 feet in the area between the entrances and 20 to 40 feet between the service drive and the southern public drive. There would be flare out areas at the entrances giving additional opportunity for landscaping and neighborhood protection. In the event that Hilaro Springs was expanded some time in'the future, it would still allow a substantial landscape area. 3. In closing, the owners are willing to meet and exceed all the requirements but feel that the unusual configuration of the site and the usable furnished quarter is paramount to the designing function of the site. To reduce that corridor any more would render it sterile. Present Use of Property: Vacant and Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Shopping Center STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Engineering reports that the north entrance on the Hilaro Springs side needs to be redesigned. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit parking areas and driveways in the required 40 -foot setback for the front yard on the Hilaro Springs Road side of the property. In the "C-2" district, the required 40-foot front yard setback shall be landscaped and maintained by the property owner, and no parking of wheeled vehicles shall be allowed in the said 40-foot buffer. This particular site is somewhat unique because of having two street frontages thus requiring two front yard setbacks. The owners are proposing to maintain the 40-foot buffer on the Baseline Road side but to provide the necessary parking circulation for the project, the owners find October 20, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued it necessary to encroach into the 40-foot strip along Hilaro Springs. Even though the 40-foot area will be primarily paved, some landscaping is still being proposed within the buffer. The site in question has already been reviewed on two separate occasions by the Planning Commission through a zoning change and site plan review. The site plan was endorsed by the Planning Commission with the owners agreeing to several conditions, including a 20-foot landscape buffer along the south and east sides. In addition, the owners were required to dedicate additional right-of-way for both Baseline and Hilaro Springs so that creates somewhat of a hardship because it reduces the amount of land available for development of the project. Staff feels that adequate justification for the variance has been provided, and that there will be no impact on other properties in the area. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was represented by John Ayers, an architect. There were no objectors. Mr. Ayers spoke briefly and said that the applicant had no problems with redesigning the north entrance on Hilaro Springs Road. The motion was made to grant the variance subject to design of the north entrance being approved by the City Engineer. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. October 20, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z-4737 Owner: Donald Kirk Address: 6209 Murray Street Description: Tract 48, Little Rock Industrial District Zoned: "I-2" Variance Requested: From the setback provisions of Section 7-104.2/d.2 and 3 to permit an addition with reduced side and rear yards. Justification: 1. The variance in the side yard setback is requested for the south side of the property. This variance is requested in order to allow the new addition to line up with the existing structure which is 14.7 feet from the property line rather than the required 15 feet. This variance is needed to avoid the necessity of constructing a building with a 0.3-foot offset which would certainly appear strange. 2. The variance in the rear yard setback is needed in order to allow the addition of a 54-foot wide addition across the back of the building. The 54-foot dimension is necessary both to meet the needs of the tenant and because the owner already has the steel needed for the construction, and it conforms to this dimension. Should this variance be denied, the building's tenant will have to accept a less usable interior space, and the owner will have to make costly changes on the existing steel. As the plan indicates, the rear property line is adjacent to a railroad right-of-way thus the loss of 9.35 feet of setback would not adversely effect the adjacent property. October 20, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued Present Use of Property: Industrial Proposed Use of Property: Industrial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None have been reported. B. Staff Analysis The proposal involves an addition, 5,400 square feet, to be constructed on the east side of the existing building with the reduced rear and side yards. In the "I-2" district, a 15-foot side yard and a 25-foot rear yard are required. The encroachment on the south side will be very minor, less than one foot, and will maintain the existing building line. There will continue to be adequate separation between the new construction and the structure to the south. The rear yard intrusion will be 10 feet, and this should not have any impact on the properties to the east because there is a railroad right-of-way adjacent to the site, and the area to the east is currently wooded. It appears that because of the size of the addition the proposed arrangement is the only reasonable option available that still provides adequate parking and vehicular maneuvering. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the setback variances as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position. October 20, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z-4739 Owner: Darrell Dover Address: 22 River Valley Description: Lot 24 and Part of Lot 25 River Ridge Manor Zoned: "R-2" Variance Requested: From the rear yard provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit an addition with a reduced setback. Justification: Because of the terrain which slopes steeply from the rear of the lot to the street, it is not feasible economically or aesthetically to make any addition to the front of the house. The original owner /builder favored front yard space at the cost of rear yard space to the extent of locating the main part of the structure on the rear yard line, meaning that virtually any addition to the rear necessitates a variance from the rear yard provisions of the ordinance. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to allow a rear yard encroachment of approximately nine feet for two additions, a bedroom expansion and additional space for storage and a workshop. In the "R-2" district, the rear yard setback is 25 feet, so the yard area will be reduced to 16 feet if the variance is granted. The lot is unique because the slope and placement of the residence right on the rear building line to take advantage of the site's topography. Any type of addition to the rear October 20, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued would require a variance, and this is not normally the case with a lot that has a depth of 140 feet. So, staff feels that a true hardship does exist. Because of the type of addition and structural configuration, the design concept chosen by the owner appears to be the most functional and the best option available. Adequate justification for the variance has been provided, and the new construction will not have an impact on any of the surrounding properties. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Darrell Dover, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Dover spoke briefly and said that he would contact AP &L concerning their service entrance to the residence. A motion was made to approve the variance subject to the owner contacting AP &L. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. October 20, 1986 Item No. 5 - Z-4749 Owner: Jim Bottin Address: 9808 Rodney Parham Description: Lot 4-C, Old Forge Subdivision Zoned: "C-3" Variance Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-103.3/E.3 to permit an addition with a 15 -foot rear yard setback. Justification: 1. The area shown for expansion in no way interferes with bordering property. 2. We feel that the present large drainage easement taken from the property gives little ability to expand any other way. 3. Fifteen feet is still adequate access to the rear of the property. Fifteen feet would be level to the fenced property and maintained in an orderly fashion from the adjacent parking lot. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been reported by the Engineering staff. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to permit an addition with a 15-foot setback. The "C-3" district requires a 25-foot rear yard so encroachment will be 10 feet, if the variance is granted. The new construction will involve additional space, a training room and storage for a martial arts school with a majority of the new area being utilized for the training facility. The site October 20, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued is located on Rodney Parham Road and abuts commercial uses on three sides. The proposed addition will not have impact on any of those properties because there are parking areas separating this structure and the buildings to the north and northwest. Staff feels proper justification has been provided for the variance and supports the request. The location is the only one available because of a large easement and another structure on the site. The new addition does raise one concern, and that is parking. The other building on the property is an eating establishment which has a higher parking ratio, so the addition could create the need for additional parking spaces. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the rear yard variance subject to adequate parking being provided for all the uses located on the site. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Larry Townley, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Townley spoke and said that he had no problems with contacting AP &L, meeting a minimum floor elevation of 382 feet, and providing the necessary parking. He also went on to say that he had discussed the proposal with the Fire Marshall's Office and they expressed no concerns. A motion was made to approve the variance subject to adequate parking being provided for all uses, the new construction having a minium floor elevation of 382 feet, and the applicant contacting AP &L. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. October 20, 1986 Item No. 6 - Z-4753 Owner: Gary Jones Address: West 6th Street and Izard Northwest Corner Description: E 104 feet of Lots 7, 8 and 9 Block 251, Original City of LR Zoned: "I-2" Variance Requested: From the parking design provision of Section 8-101 /1 to permit a variance from the design standards for 90" parking. Justification: 1. Dillard's subsidizes parking for its employees and contracts for parking in the immediate vicinity of the building at 900 West Capitol for several very important reasons: A. Over two-thirds of the employees in the corporate offices are female. B. To provide operational support for stores, the corporate offices must open before 6 a.m. and do not close until after 10 P.M. C. When we have provided parking outside the proximity of the office building, we have had major problems with harassment, thef t and damage to employee vehicles. 2. To date, we have been able to contract for parking no further than one block from our building at 900 West Capitol for over 370 employees. However, we still have 47 employees on the waiting list. Not only do these employees have to park further from the building than is desirable, but they are paying up to $25 per month for parking. October 20, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued 3. The parking lots that we provide for our employees generally do not conform to existing codes. They were built before the new codes were established. However, this does not cause a problem, because most employees drive substantially smaller cars than were in existence when the code was established, and the building that is being demolished on the lot in question is more of an eyesore than an extension of a parking lot would be. In fact, parking lots exist immediately north, south and west of the area in question. Present Use of Property: Vacant Building and Parking Proposed Use of Property: Parking STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues The City's Traffic Engineer reports that he has problems with the proposed design and cannot support the variance. This position will be expanded on at the public hearing. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board is to grant a variance from the design standards for a parking lot providing 900 spaces. The Zoning Ordinance standards for 90° parking are a width of 9 feet and a depth of 20 feet with a 20 -foot maneuvering lane. The proposal meets two of requirements, width and maneuvering. The design for the lot proposes a stall depth of 16 feet and not the required 20 feet. Currently, the property is occupied by parking, the existing 33 spaces on the west one -half and a vacant structure on the east one -half. Should this variance be approved, the building will be removed, and the parking lot will be constructed with some modifications being made to the existing spaces. The reduction in depth should not create any problems, because an adequate maneuvering lane is being provided, and staff supports the design variance for the use of the lot by Dillard's employees only. Any change in the users of the parking spaces in the future will have to reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. One final item October 20, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued is the Landscaping Ordinance, and staff would like to remind the applicant that this request is only for the design of the spaces, and the landscaping requirements will have to be met. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the design variance for the parking lot with the condition that it is only to be used by Dillard's employees. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Dan Garner, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Garner discussed the request briefly. Ed Auffert, representing Dillard's, then spoke. He described some of the problems at other locations and Dillard's experiences with the existing 16 foot stalls. Mr. Auffert went on to say that Dillard's has a policy of reassigning cars to accommodate the size of the parking space. Mr. Garner spoke again and addressed the landscaping requirements. There were some additional comments made by the various parties. A motion was made to grant the variance subject to the condition that the parking lot is only to be used by Dillard's employees. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. October 20, 1986 Item No. 7 - Z -4754 Owner: Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church Address: 4321 Woodlawn (at Walnut) Description: W 1/2 of Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 6 Pulaski Heights Subdivision Zoned: "R -2" Variance Requested: From the off - street park provisions of Section 8- 101 /H.2 to permit a commercial parking facility on property zoned "R -2.'1 Justification: 1. There is inadequate space for off - street parking. 2. Curbside parking existing is sufficient to accommodate parking needs but lacks the off - street required by ordinance. Present Use of Property: Church Parking Proposed Use of Property: Parking for a Commercial Use STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been identified. B. Staff Analysis The request is to allow a church parking lot, zoned "R -2," to be utilized as a commercial parking area for a business located at 2611 Kavanaugh. The Board of Adjustment is given the authority to approve detached or satellite parking facilities when the location is not zoned to allow the use which the parking will serve. This issue has developed over the last two to three months because the food store at 2611 Kavanaugh is serving food which requires a greater amount of parking, and this is the third time the matter is before the Board. In September of this year, the owners of 2611 Kavanaugh filed for a variance to allow no off - street parking for the existing use. During October 20, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued the public hearing, there was a lengthy discussion, and after a number of comments were made, the issue was withdrawn from consideration. This action was taken to allow the applicant to develop a more formal agreement with the church and to file the necessary variance to permit the off -site parking. An agreement has been signed by all the parties involved, and a copy is attached. After carefully reviewing the request, staff has some concerns with the proposed arrangement and does not support the variance. Staff does not feel that this is a viable option /location primarily because of the distance, approximately 1 -1/2 blocks from the business to the parking area. Another concern is that the parking lot is somewhat removed from the commercial area along Kavanaugh, and it is questionable whether patrons of the food store would even make the effort to find the parking at this location. If the spaces were located along Kavanaugh, within 300 feet as required by the ordinance, the lot would have greater visibility which is important to making this type of parking work and be a more viable alternative than what has been offered through this request. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the parking variance as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Jim Moses, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Moses said that he was representing both the Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church and the owners of the building at 2611 Kavanaugh. He then proceeded to review the issue and pointed out that this was the third time it was before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Moses said that a hardship did exist because of an existing user in "C -3" and that the area was unique because it was built up. He also said that the variance was filed because the Board of Adjustment requested a more structured agreement and then reviewed the document. Sheri Pryor, owner of the business at 2611 Kavanaugh, then spoke and presented a petition in support of her store being located in the neighborhood. There were some additional comments made about the petition and the parking lot for the Masonic Lodge. A motion was then offered which stated that the variance be approved with the stipulation that the present lease never be assigned and the intent of the motion is that it will only run with the present leasee. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. September 16, 1986 PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN PULASKI HEIGHTS PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (PH PC) and 2611 KAVANAUGH PARTNERSHIP (2611) In response to'the Partnership's desire to accommodate both their tenant, Sheri's Natural Food Grocery and the City of Little Rock, the above mentioned parties hereby agree to the following. 1. PH PC hereby agrees to make available their parking lot located on the southeast corner of Woodlawn and Walnut Streets for patrons of Sheri's Grocery, located at 2611 Kavanaugh, Little Rock, Arkansas. (see Attachment "A ") _ 2. Said use shall continue through June 30, 1989, (the date Sheri'-s lease and options with 2611 Kavanaugh Partnership expire). 3. Should this agreement be terminated for any reason, by either party, the Owners of the property, 2611 Kavanaugh Partnership shall within 30 days notify the City of Little Rock's Planning Staff that such termination has occurred. 4. No alcoholic beverages shall be served in the.grocery. 5. Signage notifying Sheri's patrons that said parking is available shall be posted within the grocery /restaurant. No signage will be posted on the lot. Agreed this 18thday of September, 1986. oil G<2 G<2xg6 W. Gunn on behalf of Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church Sheri Pryor on behalf of Sheri's Natural Food Grocery J m uses ehalf of the 2611 Kavanaugh partnership October 20, 1986 Item No. 8 - Other Matters Owner: Mr. and Mrs. K.A. Mueller Address: 5212 Maryland Street Request: Appeal of the Planning staff's decision regarding expansion of a nonconforming use. STAFF REPORT: On two separate occasions, the owners of 5212 Maryland Street tried to obtain the necessary building permit to construct a 6' x 10' addition to the rear of their residence. In each instance, the City did not issue a permit because the new construction would constitute the expansion of a nonconforming use. This has occurred because the existing structure is a single family residence, and the lot is zoned "0 -3" General Office which does not permit single family units by right. The Zoning Ordinance is very specific when addressing nonconforming uses and states that: A nonconforming use shall not be extended, expanded, enlarged or increased in intensity to any structure or land area other than that occupied by such nonconforming use on the effective date of this ordinance whereby any amendment hereto which causes such use to become nonconforming. The staff has explained this provision to the owners and offered two options, rezoning the lot to "O -1" or bringing the issue before the Board of Adjustment as an appeal of the staff's decision. After discussing the issue at length with the staff, the owners requested that the Board of Adjustment review the matter. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Staff briefly reviewed the matter and explained the issue. Mrs. K.A. Mueller then addressed the Board. She discussed the emergency situation because of her husband's condition and said that to provide the needed space to do the necessary modifications to the bathroom, that the proposed addition was the only option. There was a long discussion about the various concerns. A motion was then made which stated that the intended use of adding an addition will not expand the existing use of the structure and the original intent of the ordinance is still valid and the structure will be of a nonconforming status. In review of the October 20, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued nonconforming status, the Board finds that the anticipated addition to the existing structure is not an expansion of the nonconforming use, therefore it meets the intent of the ordinance and an addition can be allowed to be constructed. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. October 20, 1986 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. ? C�/ 1 ec etar irman Date