Loading...
boa_07 21 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES JULY 21, 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 Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: John McDaniel Tom McGowan Joe Norcross Richard Yada Jim Mitchell Herbert Rideout Ronald Pierce Members Absent: George Wells Ronald Woods Attorney: Steven Giles Pat Benton July 21, 1986 Item No. A - Z-4675 Owner: Alert Recovery, Inc. Address: 931 Stagecoach Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the mobile home provisions of Section 3-101 /C.1.0 to permit location of a mobile home as a security office Justification: Need for office in which to house security personnel due to possible vandalism of property stored Present Use of Property: Storage of Repossessed Equipment and Vehicles Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a mobile home on the property for security purposes. The unit is in place on the site and the issue is before the Board as a result of an enforcement action by the City. The Zoning Ordinance provides for the Board of Adjustment to review and approve or deny applications for the location of mobile homes or other structures in existing home sites or on nonresidential sites. The use of these structures shall be limited to 1 single family dwelling unit for on -site security purposes. The site is used for the storage of repossessed vehicles and other items so it appears that additional security is needed. There is a chain link fence around the perimeter of the property so other steps have been taken to provide security. Staff supports the variance and feels that reasonable justification has been provided. Support of the mobile home placement is based on information that the use is a legitimate nonconforming use because the property is zoned July 21, 1986 Item No. A - Continued "R-2" single family. If this is not the case, then rezoning of site should be attempted prior to receiving approval for the mobile home. Finally, the mobile home is to be used for security only and not for additional storage or anything else. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance provided that the use has a nonconforming status and that the mobile home unit be properly situated on the site. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-16-86) Staff informed the Board that the required notification of property owners had not been accomplished. A motion was made to defer the request to the July 21, 1986, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) The applicant was represented by Mr. W.H. Dillahunty, Attorney, he offered a brief statement. He stated that the mobile home presently on the site would be used for a nighttime guard only and that the owner would comply with the suggested requirements for utilities, foundation, etc. There were several objectors present. These were Mr. Buddy Raines, representing Robert Smith Estate. Mr. Raines states objections to the use in an area primarily residential and subsequent loss of property value. Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton Davis stated objections to the setback from their property line. They suggested a minimum 15' be provided and that proper septic tank installation and drainage be required. Mr. Wallace Cunningham, representing the Antioch Missionary Baptist Church expressed concerns about possibly changing the area to mobile home sites. A general discussion of the proposal then followed. A motion was made to recommend approval of the request subject to the mobile home being located no closer than 15' to the south property line and that proper septic system and drainage be provided so as to avoid intrusion upon the property to the south and that the mobile home comply with the siting requirements as to foundation, underskirting, etc. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. A - Continued FOR THE RECORD: The staff advised the applicant that this approval runs with the use of the land and must be removed if the use is discontinued. It will not run with the land and may not be rented as a separate dwelling unit. July 21, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z-3961-B Owner: Riley's Health and Fitness Center, Inc. Address: 4700 Sam Peck Road Description: Lots 14, 15 and 16 and W 15 feet of Lot 13, Woodlawn Farm Acres and Lot 1, Tennis Club Addition Zoned: "AF" and "R -2" Variance Requested: 1. From the area coverage provisions of Section 7- 105.1/F.4 to permit 36 percent lot coverage. 2. From the setback provisions of Section 7- 105.1 /F.1 to permit a 15 -foot front yard. 3. From the parking provisions of Section 8 -101 -D to permit 150 spaces. Justification: 1. Area coverage not applicable to this type of use. 2. Setback - buildings to be enclosed already exist. 3. Parking - none otherwise established by ordinance. Present Use of Property: Tennis Club Proposed Use of Property: Same with swimming pool STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. July 21, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued B. Staff Analysis The requested variances are for the West Side Tennis Club located at the northwest corner of Sam Peck Road and Peckerwood Road. Some of the property is currently zoned "AF" Agriculture and Forestry, and a rezoning request to "AF" has been filed for the western portion of the site where most of the new construction is to take place. In the "AF" District, lot coverage for the main buildings and all accessory structures shall not exceed 25 percent of the total area, and the front yard setback is 50 feet. The Tennis Center is proposing the lot coverage of approximately 36 percent with a 15-foot setback for the new structure. The requested setback maintains the building line established by the construction immediately to the east, and it appears that encroachment has not had any impacts on the surrounding properties. The proposed lot coverage is reasonable for this type of use and in keeping with a previous variance approval for lot coverage. In November 1984, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance to the Tennis Center to permit a lot coverage of 34 percent. The final variance is for the number of parking spaces to be provided. After reviewing the development plan and proposal, staff feels that the proposed 150 spaces are adequate for the current use and supports the request. When the previous variance was granted, a condition was attached which specified that the Tennis Center would make street improvements to Peckerwood at the next stage of improvements or development of the adjacent property. The street improvements should be undertaken at this time, and they should be a condition of this approval. In addition, because of the multifamily use to the north, staff suggests that a screening fence be provided along the north side of the new parking area and the necessary lighting be directional. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the three requested variances subject to the comments outlined in the staff analysis. July 21, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Christopher Barrier, Attorney for the applicant, was present and stated that he had nothing to add to the staff comments, except that the owner would erect the required fencing if necessary. Along the existing tennis area and the north boundary of the new parking area, he suggested that it might be appropriate for Planning staff to meet with the owner before construction of the subject fence to discuss the existing screening fence along the apartment complex on the north. The discussion would center around whether the existing fence will provide the required separation and protect against the intrusion of headlights. He suggested a meeting between staff and the owner might occur at some point before the required installation becomes necessary. The Planning staff responded that they could accommodate this review with the owner at the occasion of the review for final certificate of occupancy. Mr. Barrier stated in response to a staff question that he had the proof of notice list and return cards that did not have the proof of mailing slips as to the actual date they were mailed. The Board accepted this circumstance. A brief discussion was held followed by a motion for approval of the proposal subject to the installation of appropriate street improvements to City standard and the erecting of the screening requirements along the north boundary of the new parking area and a portion-of the existing parking conditioned upon staff making a determination as to actual need. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z-4336 -B Owner: Arkansas Children's Hospital Address: 8th Street between Wolfe and Marshall Description: Block 2, Faust's Addition and Block 2, Marshall and Wolfe's Addition Zoned: "O-2" variance Requested: From the setback provisions of Section 7-102.2/E.1 to permit an addition with a six -foot setback. Justification: 1. Proximity to the existing Physical Therapy Department. This therapeutic pool will function mainly as an integral part of the Physical Therapy Department which is directly located inside the existing hospital south of the proposed addition. It is impossible to locate this pool within the existing structure since there is a basement housing the building's mechanical equipment below, and also there is no available space within the existing building. Simply stated, there is no other place to put the pool and have it function as a useful addition to the Physical Therapy Department. 2. The proposed location has a neglible effect on existing parking and drives, building services and landscape areas. 3. The proposed location falls within an orderly expansion and master plan in which expansion and growth has been considered years into the future. 4. The addition will face and be primarily visible from the access road and to the interstate highway itself ( it is not as if the site faced a residential area or boulevard that has spacious and landscaped setbacks opposite and adjacent to the building site) . July 21, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued 5. Perceived setbacks and site lines will not be effected by this addition. Directly west of the site is a cooling tower enclosure that is surrounded by a high wood fence that is on the property line and west of that is a metal building that is close to the property line. 6. On adjacent blocks, various residences and apartment buildings are on or very close to property lines. Present Use of Property: Hospital Proposed Use of Property: Hospital STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been reported. B. Staff Analysis The proposal before the Board is to permit an addition, a therapeutic pool to the main building on the Children's Hospital campus with a six -foot setback. In the "O-2" District, the required setback for all yards is 25 feet, so the encroachment will be approximately 19 feet. Because of the site and the type of addition which is basically an extension of the hospital's Physical Therapy Department, the proposed location appears to be the only one available to meet the hospital needs. Adequate justification for the variance has been provided and staff supports the request. The reduced setback will not impact any adjacent properties because the addition is situated next to an access road for I-630. Also, there are other existing structures on the north side of the hospital that extend beyond the 25-foot setback that have not created any problems. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. July 21, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was present. After a brief discussion of the proposal, a motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent and 1 abstention (Joe Norcross). July 21, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z-4439-A Owner: Arkansas School Board Association Address: 808 High Street Description: S 1/2 of Lots 1, 2, 3 and E 10 feet of the S 50 feet of Lot 4, Block 412, Compton Subdivision of Lincoln Addition Zoned: "O-3" Variance Requested: From the front yard provisions of Section 7-102.3/D.1 to permit a new building a zero-foot setback. Justification: Unusual lot configuration resulting from realignment of High Street Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The requested variance is to permit a zero -foot front yard for a new office building. In the "O-3" District the required setback for a front yard is 25 feet. This particular piece of property is located on High Street just south of I-630 and the Capitol area. In this immediate vicinity, High Street was relocated to the east because of the construction of I-630. (The accompanying sketch reflects the location change made to High Street). With the zero -foot setback as is being proposed, the new building will be located approximately 90 feet from the new High Street at the nearest point. Staff believes that the realignment of High Street has created a unique circumstance and supports the request. The immediate area is not over developed, so the reduced setback will not have an impact. To the north, there is a single family residence, and on the south side, the property has some July 21, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued storage taking place on it with a rock wall and fence constructed along the east property line. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors present. The applicant was present. After a brief discussion of the proposal, a motion was made to approve the request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z-4683 Owner: Max R. Davis Address: 6700 Allied Way Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I-2" Variance Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section 7-104.2/E.2 to permit an addition with a five-foot setback. Justification: The current building is set back five feet from side property line and the structural configuration of the proposed extension would be best served by continuing the structure along existing lines. Also, the appearance of the entire area would be enhanced. Present Use of Property: Warehousing Proposed Use of Property: Warehousing STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a five -foot setback for a 9,000 square foot addition. The side yard requirement for the "I-2" District is 15 feet, so the proposed encroachment will be 10 feet. The proposal is to extend the current building lines both on the north and south sides to the rear for the new addition. The existing structure has only a five-foot setback from the north property line, and the structural configuration of the addition necessitates maintaining this type of setback relationship. The building that is in place was constructed either prior to annexation or under the old Zoning Ordinance which did not require any setbacks in the industrial districts. The tract to the north is vacant, so the encroachment will not have July 21, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued impact on it. Should that site ever be developed, it is large enough that meeting the necessary setbacks will not pose any hardships. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the side yard variance as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was present and stated that he did not have the required proof of notice materials. After a brief discussion of the notice requirement, a motion was made to defer the request to the August meeting of the Board of Adjustment. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 5 - Z-4684 Owner: Dan Turnbow Address: #6 Pilot Point Description: Lot 28, Plaza Heights Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variance Requested: From the front yard provisions of Section 7-101.2 /D.1 to permit an addition with a 21-foot setback. Justification: Being located on a cul-de-sac and structural configuration. Present Use of Property: Single family Proposed Use of Property: Same with addition STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been identified. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a small addition on the front of the residence with a reduced setback of 21 feet. The required front yard setback in the "R-2" District is 25 feet. The lot in question is unique because of being located on a cul-de-sac which reduces the amount of yard area at the southwest corner. If the street right-of-way was at 90° to the west property line, the proposed addition would have a setback of approximately 35 feet and no variance would be necessary. It is the staff's opinion that the cul-de-sac alignment does create a hardship, and the requested variance is justified. In addition, the lot drops off dramatically from south to north which restricts the location of any addition. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. July 21, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The owner was represented by Mr. Chuck Helgenson. Mr. Helgenson made a brief statement. The staff then noted that the notice to adjacent property owners was deficient in that it contained only the two abutting owners with a potential of six or more adjacent owners. Mr. Helgenson stated that the owner apparently did not know he had to notify all of the owners within the 200' including across the street. After a brief discussion, the Board voted to approve a motion to defer this matter until the August meeting of the Board. The vote 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 6 - Z-4688 Owner: MacMillian Blodel Containers Address: 1901 East 22nd Street Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I-2" Variance Requested: From the yard provisions of Section 7-104.2/E to permit an addition with a zero-foot setback. Justification: Only suitable location for expansion. Present Use of Property: Manufacturing Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a new addition with a reduced setback for the rear yard. The "I-2" District requires 25 feet for the rear yard setback. Because of the angle of the street, the southern end of the addition will be situated approximately 100 feet from the east property line and only a small portion of new construction will be involved with encroachment. As the addition is proposed, the northeast corner of it will have a zero -foot setback and that will gradually increase from north to south. The applicant has stated that there are no other suitable locations for the expansion, and that appears to be the case. The existing structure was constructed when setbacks were not required in the industrial districts, so there are very few options available for a new addition. Most of the industrial buildings in the general area have setbacks that do not meet current ordinance requirements, so the proposal is not in conflict with the existing development pattern. The reduced setback will not have an impact on any surrounding properties. July 21, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The request was represented by Mr. Ed Turner. The Planning staff reported that the Engineering Department had unresolved questions about the required parking spaces. Mr. Turner stated that he would be willing to work with Mr. Scott in the Public Works Department to resolve this issue. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the request as filed subject to resolution of the off-street parking requirement issue. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 7 - Z-4690 Owner: Nadine Robinson Address: 3807 Snow Circle Description: Lot 5, Granite Heights Subd. No. 3 Zoned: "R-2" Variance Requested: From the height and area provisions of Section 5-101 /F.2.c to permit a satellite dish less than 60 feet from the front property line. Justification: Lot configuration Present Use of Property: Single family Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The issue is to allow a satellite dish to be located less than 60 feet from the front property line. (The dish is in place, and the request is a result of an enforcement action.) The City considers satellite dishes accessory structure, and the Zoning Ordinance requires them to be situated at least 60 feet from the front property line. Because of this lot's shape, meeting the 60-foot requirement and still having a functional dish would be somewhat difficult. With the lot being triangular only the rear of the residence conforms to the Ordinance requirements, and that area has some trees and other intrusions that preclude the placement of the dish. Also, a satellite dish has to be directed to the southwest so that places additional restrictions on available sites. Under the circumstances, the existing location of the dish appears to be the most reasonable. July 21, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was present and had no additional comments. A motion was made for approval as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 8 - Z-4693 Owner: Frank Fletcher, Jr. Address: 2000 East 17th Street Description: Blocks 16 and 17, Manufacturer's Addition Zoned: "I-2" and "I-3" Variance Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section 7-104.3/D.2 Justification: New building having to set 40 feet from existing structure to provide fire service alley. Present Use of Property: Parking lot Proposed Use of Property: Warehouse STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a new building with a 25-foot setback for the north side yard. The side yard requirement in the "I-3" District is 30 feet. A portion of the new construction will be located on land zoned "I-2" which requires a 15-foot side yard, so there is no variance required there. The primary justification for the variance is the requirement of providing a 40-foot fire lane between the existing building and the proposed structure. This is being requested by the City's Public Works Department to maintain adequate access for fire protection. The encroachment of five feet will not have an impact on the property to the north because that is being used primarily for pipe storage. Reduced setbacks or yard areas not meeting the Zoning Ordinance requirements in this section of Little Rock are quite common. July 21, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was represented by a Mr. Jones who stated that he had met with Mr. Scott of the Public Works Staff and had satisfied the parking need. He also stated that he was aware of the utility requirements for movement of existing facilities and had made provision for such. A motion was then made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 9 - Z-4696 Owner: J.L. + Evelyn Thomas Address: Thomas Park Road Description: Lots 7A and 7B, Thomas Park Addition, Phase II Zoned: "R-2" Variance Requested: From the floodplain restrictions of Paragraph A, Paragraph 4 of Section B of Article 5 of Ordinance No. 14,534 to permit a waiver of the 25-foot setback from the floodway line. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues To be presented at the hearing. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to waive the required 25-foot setback from a floodway line for two lots. Ordinance No. 14,534 requires a 25-foot setback from any established floodway line. Thomas Park Addition was platted prior to the Corps of Engineers mapping the floodway in this area, so that does create some justification for requesting a variance. After reviewing the request, staff feels that only Lot 7B is truly impacted by the floodway setback line and that it should be granted some relief from the 25-foot setback. Staff feels that some type of setback should remain to provide an area for access if it is needed. Lot 7A has less of a floodway involvement, and even with the 25-foot requirement, there is still an adequate buildable area so no hardship exists. July 21, 1986 Item No. 9 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that an encroachment of 15 feet be granted for only Lot 7B, thus reducing the floodway setback to 10 feet, and no variance will be approved for Lot 7A. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors present. The application was represented by Mr. Robert Richardson. Mr. Richardson stated that he concurred with the staff recommendation. Mr. Larry McKellups, a neighbor, had questions concerning the drainage problem in the area. A brief discussion of the drainage issue resulted in the Board determining that no action of the Board would affect the current drainage circumstances. The Board directed Mr. McKellups to Mike Batie of the Public Works Department to discuss resolution of the problem. A motion was then made to approve the application as recommended by the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 10 - Z-4697 Owner: Sheldon L. Rand Address: 1305 North Mellon Description: Lot 35, Hall Cove Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variance Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section 7- 101.2 /G.1 to permit a new carport with a zero -foot setback. Justification: 1. No other access from rear or side of property for a vehicle is available. 2. Carport can't be located on south side of house because the slope north to south is 14 inches to the centerline of the driveway and east to west is 25 inches from the west side of the carport to the east side of a circular drive. Both slopes are very steep. Present Use of Property: Single family Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to grant a side yard variance for a carport to be located on the south property line. In the "R -2" District, a maximum of 8 feet is required for a side yard. The proposed carport will be 12' x 38' and attached to the existing carport. The exact nature of its construction is unknown at this time, but it will be used for a motor home vehicle. Staff is concerned with the size of the construction and the issue of over building the lot. In addition to the structural involvement, a high percentage of the front yard is paved and the carport as is being proposed July 21, 1986 Item No. 10 - Continued could create an undesirable situation. One potential problem is runoff, and its impact on the property in question and the lot to the south. With a carport of this size being situated directly on the property line, its impact on other properties should be carefully considered. After reviewing the proposal, staff feels that a true hardship does not exist and cannot support the zero-foot setback. It appears that the carport could adversely affect the neighborhood and be an unsightly addition to the lot because of its size. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the variance as requested. The staff provided comments to the Board that had been received from the Wastewater Utility concerning the placement of a sewer line adjacent to the south property line which would lie directly beneath the proposed construction. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The owner was present and addressed the staffs recommendation offering arguments counter to those points offered in the staff analysis. He stated that he was aware of the sewer line, but that it was under the existing retaining wall approximately 5 1/2' and would not be harmed by this construction. When questioned by the Staff and the Board, Mr. Rand stated that he accepted the fact that he would bear the cost of replacing any property or structures which the utility might be required to remove for access to their line. Mr. Rand described his building as a carport for a motor home which will have 8 metal posts supporting a roof structure. Mr. Rand then offered a lengthy presentation of circumstances in the immediate neighborhood which he indicated are of a like kind to his proposal and supported his variance request. After a lengthy discussion of the proposal, the Board voted on a motion to approve the variance subject to the requirement of a l' setback from the south property line and assurance of protection and location of the existing sewer line. This motion failed for lack of an affirmative vote. The vote on the motion was 2 ayes, 4 nays and 3 absent. Additional discussion was held concerning whether the Board should or could proceed with further dicussion and offer relief in the form of a different proposal. The Board determined that it was appropriate to act on a second proposal which suggested the carport be placed in direct July 21, 1986 Item No. 10 - Continued line with the existing carport with the same side yard on the south. This proposal would require a side yard variance inasmuch as the current carport structure intrudes in the yard area. A second motion was then made to approve the location of the carport as follows: the location of the structure is to be immediately in front and west of the current carport sharing the same and an extension of the south carport line and over the existing driveway. The structure is also required to be attached to the carport and the house. This motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 nays and 2 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 11 - Z-4698 Owner: Industrial Plaza Partners, Ltd. Address: West 65th and Geyer Springs Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-3" Variance Requested: From the outdoor display provisions of Section 7-103.3 a and b to permit outside display within a fenced area. Justification: Code provisions allow outdoor display under certain unspecified conditions. Applicant's use would not be an offense to the area or conflict with code provisions. Proposed use needed to be competitive to similar businesses using outside display. Additional outside areas needed to service the needs of retail customers. Present Use of Property: Shopping center Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit permanent open display for a retail outlet zoned "C-3," and a variance is required to allow this type of activity. The development criteria for the "C-3" District states that: All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings except parking lots, plant nurseries promotional events and normal pump island services of service station operations. In addition, outdoor display of merchandise is allowed in an area equal to one-half of the facade area of the front of the building. Certain seasonal or special event sales may be allowed when the owner has requested a permit for such activity in conjunction with the privilege license July 21, 1986 Item No. 11 - Continued application. The permitting authority shall review the owner's plan or placement of merchandise in order to assure that obstruction of driveways, walks, required parking and fire lanes does not occur. In no case shall full-time static open display be permitted. In addition, the purpose and intent section says that outdoor display of merchandise is allowed under carefully controlled conditions. The proposal is to construct a chain link fence around an area 16' x 170', adjacent to West 65th, and display such items as garden supplies, building materials and seasonal merchandise. The applicant has stated that this type of display area is needed to allow the store in question to be competitive with other similar establishments. He has pointed out that other stores have outdoor display areas and the staff recognizes that, but a majority of those locations have the area in very close proximity to the principal building and not located adjacent to the street. Also, with most retail establishments that have fenced areas, they are placed directly adjacent to a building. In those situations where seasonal display is occurring, it is always in front of the building and does not have the appearance of being permanent so the items can be readily changed. What is being proposed with this variance could create a very undesirable situation and staff does not support the request. Because of the proposed location, it could have an adverse impact on the area by becoming an unsightly storage facility and a trash receptacle. If outdoor display is needed, it should be located closer to the building and not within a permanent fenced area. Adequate justification has not been provided for the variance, and the proposal goes far beyond the intent of the "C-3" District and the provisions for outdoor display under carefully controlled conditions. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors in attendance. There was one letter of objection from an adjacent property owner. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Thrash. Mr. Thrash offered comments on the proposal identifying the type of usage and similar uses on other retail projects about the City indicating that this proposal would be no more of an impact on the adjacent property than K -Mart and other similar types of uses in their neighborhoods. He stated that the parking July 21, 1986 Item No. 11 - Continued lot should not be impacted as to the number of spaces inasmuch as there are approximtely 20 stalls currently in excess of the Ordinance requirement. A lengthy discussion of the proposal was then held whereby several options were offered for placement of the open air display. These suggestions involved the staff and other City departments working with the owner on the design and placement. A motion followed as follows: that the the variance be approved so long as the display is adjacent and contiguous to the building and the owner is to locate and advise the City staff of the specifications. Additional comments were then offered by the staff as to gaining direction on placement and dimensions. The staff felt this was required prior to a vote on the motion so as to give some direction. The motion was characterized by a member of the Board as permitting an open display on the property with the staff and other City personnel reviewing the plan. This would involve such departments as Fire and Building Codes. After further discussion, it was determined that a second to the motion would not be forthcoming. Further discussion of the matter disclosed that the Board had sufficient concerns about the proposal to warrant a deferral. A motion was then made to defer the request until the August meeting in order to allow the applicant time to rethink the proposal and offer solutions to the concerns raised. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 12 - Z-4699 Owner: Ralph Hyman Address: 1717 Kavanaugh Description: Lots 7 and 8, Block 11, East Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: "R-3" Variance Requested: From the yard provisions of Section 7-103 /D B to permit encroachment by a pool into a setback. Justification: Lot size Present Use of Property: Single family Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The issue is to allow a swimming pool, an accessory structure to be located less than 60 feet from the front property line. In the "R -3" District, accessory structures shall be not located closer than 60 feet to the front property line. Because of being located on a corner, the lot dimension and the placement of the residence on the lot, there is no area available for a pool that does not require a variance. This would be the situation regardless of what street side is called the front yard. Staff believes that a hardship exists and supports the variance. The pool should not have a visible impact on the neighborhood because the area is below the street grade of both Kavanaugh and North Valentine. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. July 21, 1986 Item No. 12 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7- 21 -86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was represented by Cindy Bauer. There was a brief discussion of the siting of the pool and discussion of possible placement of a screening fence. The fence issue was referred to the Public Works Department for resolution as to blind corner Ordinance and permitted height. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. July 21, 1986 Item No. 13 - Z-3858-A Owner: Mabelvale United Methodist Church Address: 2nd and Walnut Description: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 29, Town of Mabelvale Zoned: "R -2" with conditional use permit Request: To review previously approved conditional use permit under the provisions of Section 4-102/H.3 Present Use of Property: Church Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: The request is to determine whether a proposed after school care program meets the conditions set out in a previously approved conditional use permit. The Zoning Ordinance allows for expansions or additions under the following conditions: 1. Said proposed expansion is limited to a structural addition to an existing building not to exceed 10 percent of the gross floor area within the existing structure to be expanded. 2. Said expansion is limited to one time subsequent to the original conditional use authorization. 3. Said proposed expansion is reviewed and approved by the Little Rock Board of Adjustment with a determination that such expansion does not violate any of the conditions set forth in the original conditional use authorization does not require further imposition of new conditions and does not adversely impact surrounding properties. A conditional use permit was approved for the church, nonconforming at the time, in September 1982, for a multi - purpose building. The structure is being utilized for many activities including a gym. The proposed program will use the gym and the basement of the sanctuary building. The only additional structural involvement will be the addition of some playground equipment, and this area will have a restricted time period for use. July 21, 1986 Item No. 13 - Continued Staff's position is that the proposed expansion meets the provisions set out in the Zoning Ordinance and is not in conflict with the approved conditional use permit. (Attached is the letter of request from the church.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant was present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance as filed and declare the proposal in keeping with the Conditional Use Permit as approved. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (John McDaniel). MABELVALE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH SECOND AND WALNUT STREETS BOX 165 MABELVALE, ARKANSAS 72103 June 19, 1986 Mr. Tony Bozynski Office of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Markham at Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Mr. Bozynski: I am filing this request for approval of an after-school care program for children 6 to 12 years of age and those who are five and in kindergarten. We will use mainly our existing educational facility located in the basement hall of the sanctuary building. We will also use the gym. On the rear parking lot a four-square, hopscotch and ball circle will be painted and two or three pieces of play equipment, such as a balance rail, a sandbox, and a tunnel constructed from a barrel, will be placed on the grass between the building and the parking lot. Use of the playground will be restricted to between 4:45 and 6 p.m. We plan to enroll up to 29 children with two full-time directors and numerous volunteers. This program is a needed service in the community and is regarded by our church as a mission /ministry outreach we can do. We have passed all other inspections and await this consideration by the Board of Adjustment before receiving our license. Please grant us approval for this use of our building and grounds, which are admirably suited for this purpose. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jenni Douglas Coordinator of Educational Ministries July 21, 1986 Item No. 14 - Other Matters Request: To review parking provisions in the Zoning Ordinance because of the City denying several privilege licenses. STAFF REPORT: Jim Moses has submitted a written request to the Planning Office asking the staff and the Board of Adjustment to review the parking requirements because of a problem he has encountered trying to lease a building at 2611 Kavanaugh zoned "C -3," in the Hillcrest area that he and several partners own. In this structure, there are two areas available for lease, and over the past couple months, several parties have approached Mr. Moses about leasing space for a food service establishment. When the person applied for a privilege license, each request was denied because of not meeting the parking requirements, which is one space per 100 square feet for an eating place. The location in question is part of a long established neighborhood commercial district where parking requirements are a problem as is the case with most older commercial areas. Mr. Moses is concerned with this situation because of the possible effect on the viability of these areas and is suggesting that special consideration be given to central city neighborhoods when reviewing zoning and privilege licenses. He feels that there is a difference between areas such as the Hillcrest Neighborhood Center and suburban commercial locations that needs to be recognized when various reviews are being made by the City. The Zoning Ordinance is very specific in setting out the parking standards and makes no allowances for old areas versus newly developed locations. Also, the City Board of Directors has instructed the staff to follow the ordinance in all situations when reviewing developments and parking requirements. (Attached is a copy of Mr. Moses' letter that goes into great detail about his concerns.) July 21, 1986 Item No. 14 - Other Matters Request: To review parking provisions in the Zoning Ordinance because of the City denying several privilege licenses. STAFF REPORT: Jim Moses has submitted a written request to the Planning Office asking the staff and the Board of Adjustment to review the parking requirements because of a problem he has encountered trying to lease a building at 2611 Kavanaugh zoned "C -3," in the Hillcrest area that he and several partners own. In this structure, there are two areas available for lease, and over the past couple months, several parties have approached Mr. Moses about leasing space for a food service establishment. When the person applied for a privilege license, each request was denied because of not meeting the parking requirements, which is one space per 100 square feet for an eating place. The location in question is part of a long established neighborhood commercial district where parking requirements are a problem as is the case with most older commercial areas. Mr. Moses is concerned with this situation because of the possible effect on the viability of these areas and is suggesting that special consideration be given to central city neighborhoods when reviewing zoning and privilege licenses. He feels that there is a difference between areas such as the Hillcrest Neighborhood Center and suburban commercial locations that needs to be recognized when various reviews are being made by the City. The Zoning Ordinance is very specific in setting out the parking standards and makes no allowances for old areas versus newly developed locations. Also, the City Board of Directors has instructed the staff to follow the ordinance in all situations when reviewing developments and parking requirements. (Attached is a copy of Mr. Moses' letter that goes into great detail about his concerns.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) Mr. Jim Moses offered comments on the circumstance of his proposal and the building involved. He further identified his search for parking within the area to satisfy the City's requirement. He stated that there was little or no parking resource in the immediate area and that most properties were fully developed and that situation had existed for 60 years or more. The staff outlined the Board of Director directive on controlling occupancy changes which increase parking requirements. It was pointed out becuase the use is nonconforming as to parking, that a like kind of use could July 21, 1986 Item No. 14 - Continued occupy the space, but that a use requiring a greater parking requirement could not. Mr. Moses addressed use of the Masonic Lodge property parking and stated that a long-term commitment could not be obtained. He stated that he had attempted everything to relieve the situation without success and felt that some relief was in order. A lenghty discussion followed wherein it was determined that a specific request would be entertained by the Board. A consideration of the hardships would be reviewed for possible variance. Further that the Staff policy direction is affirmed. This position of the Board was unanimous and no formal motion was offered nor deemed necessary. Mr. Tony Bozynski Office of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Little Rock, AR 72201 T-T7-M 140. 14 July 3, 1986 Re: Privilege License Denial - 2611 Kavanaugh Building Dear Tony: The purpose of this letter is to describe a serious problem we have encountered regarding the leasing of the above referenced building, due to prospective tenants' inability to obtain a privilege license. I would like to ask the Planning Staff and the Board of Adjustment to consider our situation and help us remedy this problem, if possible. Last August (1985), my partners and I purchased a 3,500 square foot, one story building located at 2611 Kavanaugh, in the Hillcrest neighborhood. In recent years, the building has housed several retail users, including a bicycle shop, a camping supply store and a record store. At the time we purchased the building, approximately 1,200 square feet were leased to a car stereo shop and the balance of the space was vacant. Prior to the closing of the sale, I checked and confirmed that this property was zoned C-3. The sale included the building and the land on which the building is located. I would estimate that this building is approximately 40 years old. To the east and sharing a common wall is the Cabaret Restaurant and Bar. To the west is an alley that, because of the steep terrain between Woodlawn and Kavanaugh, does not permit through traffic. On the west side of the alley is the Hillcrest Laundry. In the past two (2) months, three different prospective tenants have seriously considered leasing the remaining 2,300 square feet in the building with the idea of opening some type of food service facility (ranging from a tea room /catering business serving one meal a day to a hamburger restaurant serving lunch and dinner). In each instance, the prospective tenant's use is allowed under "C-3" zoning, but when they inquired about obtaining a privilege license, they were refused. 225 EAST MARKHAM RM SUITE 400 HERITAGE EAST LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE (501) 375-0378 •Architecture • Planning •Development• Mr. Tony Bozynski July 3, 1986 Page Two Jim Hatcock at the licensing office has now explained to me that although a restaurant is permitted under "C-3" zoning and that in fact the building is in a "C-3 zone, the license could not be granted because we do not have adequate parking. We were told that a restaurant there would further increase the level of non-compliance regarding parking and that we would need parking in a ratio of 1 to 100 square feet or the license would not be issued. Such action on the City's part has left us without a tenant in our building. We are troubled by the concept of restricting use in an existing urban neighborhood, through the privilege license process, rather than the zoning process. Although we can apprecate this joint scrutiny (privelege license and zoning use review) for new construction, where the developer must provide parking regardless of the use, the current position of the City works a hardship on the older, more urban commercial districts, where suburban style development cannot occur. In fact, we own no other land on which the required parking could be located. Obviously, we cannot manufacture additional land. The City's approach, in essence, restricts the use of the building, even though the zoning allows for it. We are left to suffer the consequences. We have asked the Masonic Lodge at 2700 Kavanaugh (less than 150 feet to the west of our property) for permission to use their lot, which is normally occupied by them one time a month, in the evenings. They have consented to our request, but are unwilling to reduce the verbal commitment to writing. In addition, Kavanaugh is a primary bus route, providing public vehicular access to our property and requiring no parking for visitors once they arrive. We believe the Masonic parking and the bus access will adequately handle parking for the building. It is our opinion that the several central city neighborhoods (e.g., HIllcrest, Heights) deserve special consideration when the zoning and privilege licensing process is applied. Quality commercial development and redevelopment along Kavanaugh will in the long term help keep these neighborhoods healthy and vibrant. Neighborhood restaurants, take out services and catering businesses are commonplace in many cities and assist in making neighborhoods more desirable, not less. Random clearing of property along Kavanaugh to conform to city parking requirements could well become the norm for future development. And, in our opinion, that is neither practical nor desirable. Mr. Tony Bozynski July 3, 1986 Page Three We ask that you reconsider the application of the privilege licensing process as a means to further restrict allowed uses within zones in the older parts of our city. And specifically, we ask that a restaurant be allowed to occupy space in our building, provided it meets all other city and health requirements. Sincerely, Jam s A. Moses JAM /mlb July 21, 1986 Item No. 15 - Other Matters Request: To review a prior denial of signal media broadcast tower submitted by letter of the applicants attorney. The specific request is that the Board of Adjustment reopen this issue for a height variance due to the appointment problems existant at the time of the last review when this proposal was denied. The applicant's attorney stated that he felt his client was impacted by that circumstance and that some review was appropriate. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-21-86) The request was not represented. The Planning staff offered a brief overview of the issue with some history of the action and subsequent polling of the Board for reconsideration. The Board briefly discussed the request and determined that it would not hear the issue. July 21, 1986 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at at 3:30 p.m. Secretary Chairman Date