Loading...
boa_08 18 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD August 18, 1986 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 of the July 1, 1986, and the July 21, 1986, meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Joe Norcross John McDaniel Ronald Woods Richard Yada Herbert Rideout Thomas McGowan Jim Mitchell Members Absent: George Wells Ronald Pierce City Attorney: Steve Giles Pat Benton August 18, 1986 Item No. A - 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 August 18, 1986 Item No. A - 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-18-86) The applicant, Max Davis, was present. There were no objectors. Staff informed the Board that the notification requirements had been fullfilled. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. B - 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. Enqineerinq Issues No issues have been identified. B. Staff Analvsis 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. August 18, 1986 Item No. B - 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-18-86) The applicant, Chuck Helgeson, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff informed the Board members that all the necessary signatures had been obtained. A motion was then made to grant the variance as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. C - 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 August 18, 1986 Item No. C - 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 August 18, 1986 Item No. C - 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-18-86) The applicant was represented by Rick Donovan, an attorney. There were no objectors present. Staff indicated that they could support an outside display area within a chain link fence if located adjacent to the building. Mr. Donovan said that the staff's recommendation was reasonable and suggested the southwest corner of the building as a possible location. He said the area would be 26' x 46' in size and access would be from the covered sidewalk. Mr. Donovan went on to say that the fenced area would not extend beyond the west building line and not interfere with vehicle movement along the rear of the property. There was a long discussion about the various issues. A motion was made to grant the necessary variance for outside display subject to the area being located at the southwest corner of the building with the dimensions to be 26' north to south and 46' east to west and the Fire Department approving the location. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z-3570-A Owner: Coulson Oil Company Address: 3124 South University Avenue Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-4" Open Display Variance Requested: 1. From the area regulation provisions of Section 7-103.4/E.2 to permit reduced setbacks. 2. From the off-street parking provisions of Section 8-101/B.3.G to permit stacking spaces and service bay spaces to count as parking spaces. Justification: 1. The existing nonconforming building will be removed and a new building constructed. The site is bordered on three sides by streets each requiring a 45 foot setback. The site is approximately 120 feet wide on the west and 93 feet wide on the east. Subtracting setbacks would leave a strip too narrow for practical improvement thus making the site unbuildable for the uses it is currently zoned for. 2. The nature of the business of the proposed Jiffy Wash and Jiffy Lube is drive through. Owners drive their cars directly into the service bays and merely wait 10 to 20 minutes for completion of the service. For this reason, the parking required by the Ordinance is met by including the bay and stack areas. Present Use of Property: Service Station Proposed Use of Property: Auto Lubrication Service August 18, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z-3570-A - Continued STAFF REPORT A. Enaineerina Issues None reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to replace the existing structure, a service station, with a new building that will also have auto related uses; a car wash and lubrication services. In the "C-4" district, exterior side yards must be equal to the front yard setback which is 45 feet. The site in question is somewhat unique because it has streets on 3 sides which all require a 45 foot setback. Meeting the setbacks on the Lakeshore and West 32nd sides would create an unbuildable area especially for a "C-4" piece of property. The required setback for the University side is being met and that appears to'have the more critical relationship to the other uses in the immediate area. The new development improves the site because of the existing uses are unsightly and very cluttered. Staff feels that a hardship does exist and supports the reduced side yards for Lakeshore Drive and West 32nd Street. The variance request concerning the parking requirements is also reasonable due to the nature of the business. The proposed use will be an auto lubrication service where the customers have to wait about 20 minutes for the work to be completed. Because of this, allowing the service bays and stacking spaces to serve as some of the required parking is appropriate. Staff does recommend that the owner work with the Zoning Enforcement Office to ensure that proper landscaping is provided along University and that the dumpster located in the northwest corner be sited so that the truck does not back into Lakeshore Drive. It should be situated so that all necessary maneuvering takes place on the site. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variances with the condition that no waivers of the Landscaping Ordinance be granted. August 18, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Dan Sneade, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Sneade presented a letter from the church to the west which indicated they had no objections but did request that a screening fence be constructed along the common property line. Mr. Sneade said that he had no problems with the church's request. After some additional comments, a motion was made to grant the variances subject to the condition that no waivers from the Landscaping Ordinance be obtained. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z-4707 Owner: Carl and Janet Brown Address: 3008 Walker Street Description: Lot 4, Block 78, John Barrow Addition Zoned: "R-3" Single Family Variance Requested: From the front yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.3 /D.1 to permit a carport with an 18 foot setback. Justification: Only feasible location and to provide protection from the weather. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been identified. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to allow an encroachment into the front yard area for a carport and covered front porch. The "R-3" district requires a 25 foot front yard and the proposed setback is 18 feet so the yard area will be reduced by 7 feet. The owner has identified that the carport's location is the only feasible one because of utilizing the existing driveway and that does appear to be the case. The previous carport was enclosed and the new one will be adjacent to that area. In addition to the carport, the owner is also proposing a covered porch area along the front of the residence to provide some protection from the weather and to correct a problem with some water seepage under the doors during heavy rain. Because of the nature of the construction, the reduced setback will not have an impact on surrounding properties and staff supports the request. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. August 18, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION The owner, Carl Brown, was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z-4709 Owner: Thomas P. McCaan Address: 2619 North University Avenue Description: Lot 3, and the South 1/2 of Lot 2 Block 21, Parkview Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit a carport with a 0 foot setback. Justification: There are two large Oak trees behind the proposed addition and therefore, nowhere else possible to add an attached parking area. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a carport to be constructed adjacent to the north property line with less than a 1 foot setback. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 7.5 foot side yard for this particular lot. In addition to the carport, the new construction will also involve some living areas along the rear of the residence, but only the carport is involved with this variance request. Based on the information provided by the owner, the proposed carport is to be used for two autos and staff questions whether that will be a functional arrangement because the survey indicates an opening of approximately 13 feet for the carport. Also, the survey shows that the new addition will maintain the existing building line and be extended to the new carport which could cause difficulties for two cars utilizing the carport. Normally, a two car garage requires at least 20 feet to allow both cars to use August 18, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued the area without causing a lot of problems. Staff feels that placing a carport on the north side of the residence is the only reasonable option because of the existing driveway and several trees in the rear yard, but suggests that shifting the carport could create a more functional structure. One possible option would be to move the carport to the area that is identified on the survey as "new concrete drive." This would necessitate the carport to be lengthened to allow the autos to park one behind the other. A variance would still be required but some additional setback would be gained because of a different design. As the proposal is presented on the survey providing a caport for two autos just does not appear to work. C. Staff Recommendation Staff would like more information on the design of the carport and how it is to be utilized prior to making any kind of recommendation. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Thomas McCann, was present. There were no objectors. Staff informed the Board that the design issue had been resolved and supported the requested variance for an open carport with the condition that no runoff or drainage problems are created for the lot to the north. Mr. McCann then spoke and discussed the various issues. He said that the property owner to the north had no problems with the structure being located on the property line. A motion was then made to grant the variance for an open carport subject to no runoff or drainage problems are created to the lot to the north. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z-4710 Owner: Roy and Breda Turner Address: 1810 North Spruce Street Description: Lot 79 and North 1/2 of Lot 78 Shadowlawn Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit an addition with a 5 foot setback. Justification: 1. The need for a variance is due to the fact that although the property is quite wide, 75 feet, the existing structure lies only approximately 5 feet from the property line on the north side of the house. To maintain the existing line of the house requires us to build that close to the line. 2. The proposed addition will follow the line of our home so that the addition will blend in with the existing structure and not look like an addition, thereby enhancing the value of the property and the surrounding neighborhood. As viewed from the street, the home will continue to look as widely separated from the houses on either side as it does presently. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. August 18, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to add a new addition to the rear of the residence maintaining the building lines. The existing structure does not meet the required side yard setbacks so that is the reason for the variance. There is substantial separation between this residence and the house to the north because of a driveway and grass area so continuing the encroachment will not create any problems. The owner has chosen the best option available from increasing the floor area and staff supports the request. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the side yard variance be granted as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Roy Turner, was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. 5 - Z-4711 Owner: Charles E. Knight Address: 2600 North Grant Street Description: Lot 7 and South 1/2 of Lot 8, Block 21 Parkview Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the side yard provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit a deck with a reduced setback. Justification: To save a tree and the most esthetic design. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT A. Enaineerinq Issues None reported. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to permit a deck, approximately 3 to 4 feet high to encroach into the required side yard setback which is 7 feet for the lot in question. Only a very small section of the deck is invovled with the variance and will reduce the setback to 5 feet, if granted. The two primary reasons for the variance are to save a tree and the proposed design is the most esthetic for both the property owner and the neighborhood. Because of the structural involvement and the intrusion being so minor, staff feels that the variance is reasonable and supports the request. There will be no impact on the surrounding properties from the new construction. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. August 18, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to grant the variance as requested. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. 6 - Z-4713 Owner: Kaywood Cordell and Janice Clements Address: 100 West 4th Street (Mabelvale) Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 44, Town of Mabelvale Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the rear yard provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit a carport with a reduced setback. Justification: 1. The workshop /garage can also be used as an exit from the second story level in case of fire. 2. The driveway which faces Main Street is directly adjacent to the carport and garage/workshop thus making entrance to the dwelling much more accessible. 3. Due to the location of the mobile home, storm cellar and the south driveway, we are unable to construct the garage/workshop in a carport on the south end of the already existing home. 4. The addition of the garage /workshop and carport will appreciate the property considerably. 5. The garage/workshop and carport are needed to protect vehicles from the weather as well as the possiblity of crime. 6. The garage /workshop is used to store different types of hand tools as well as yard tools. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family August 18, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board is to allow a carport and workshop area to intrude into the rear yard setback. The request is to reduce the setback to 12.5 feet which is an encroachment of 12.5 feet becuase the rear yard requirement for the "R-2" district is 25 feet. Based on a site inspection, it appears that the proposed location for the addition is the only viable one because of an existing driveway and attaching it to the residence. Even with the reduced setback, there will be adequate separation between this property and the lot to the north because of a dedicated alley abutting the lot in question. The new construction and necessary variance will not have an impact on any of the surrounding properties and staff supports the request with the condition that the existing trailers be removed from the site. The workshop addition is to be an accessory use to the residence and the variance approval is not an endorsement of any nonresidential activity taking place on the property. Also, because of the carport Lot 12 becomes unbuildable as a separate lot. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to the condition outlined in the staff analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Kaywood Cordell, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Cordell addressed the Board and said he understood the conditions including removal of the trailer. There was a brief discussion about the various issues. A motion was made to grant the variance subject to the trailer being removed from the site within 120 days from the date of approval, the workshop addition is to be an accessory use only to the residence and that the owner understands that Lot 12 becomes unbuildable as a separate lot. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. 7 - Z-4714 Owner: Laurie Dwyer Address: 911 West 14th Street Description: Lot 12, Block 242, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the area regulation provisions of Section 7-103.3 to permit new construction with reduced front and side yards. Justification: Tearing down the old buildings is almost mandated by the requirements of the Traffic Control Engineer as outlined in the cover letter. Because of the narrowness of the lot and the setback requirements, rebuilding on the property without the reqested variances would almost be impossible. Present Use of Property: Residential and Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The request is to allow a new building to be constructed with the reduced setbacks for the front and side yards. In the "C-3" district the front yard setback is 25 feet and because of being on a corner, the West 14th side or exterior side setback is also 25 feet. The owner is requesting encroachment of 20 feet for both yard areas. It has been determined that the south property line is a side yard and the proposed 15 feet is the required setback, so no variance is necessary. The new building should be an improvement over the existing situation because the lot has two structures August 18, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued on it, a residence and a commercial building. Both are to be removed if the variance is granted. The residential use is in the process of being dismantled. The proposed setback for the West 14th Street side appears to be reasonable, but staff is concerned with the variance for the Izard Street side. Izard Street is primarily occupied by single family residences and allowing a commerical building to have a 5 foot front yard facing Izard could have an adverse impact on the residential properties. Staff feels that the Izard setback should be increased to 20 feet. This will offer more protection to the neighborhood and only have a minimal affect on the proposed development. After reviewing the site plan and proposed parking layout, staff suggests that the owner contact the City's Traffic Engineer about a redesign of the parking area to make it more functional and access should also be reviewed with the Traffic Engineer. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the 5 foot setback for the West 14th Street side as filed and a 20 foot front yard for Izard Street subject to the Traffic Engineer's approval of the parking layout and access. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Laurie Dwyer, was present. There were four persons in attendance who expressed an interest in the case. Ms. Dwyer spoke and said that 5' was needed on the Izard side because a greater setback would reduce the size of the building and the area for the required parking. Several Board members pointed out that an increased setback on Izard would not impact the parking because the ordinance only requires four spaces. Ms. Dwyer made some additional comments then she agreed to a 20' setback for Izard as recommended by the staff. Hazel Bowers, a resident on Izard, said she was opposed to the variances and indicated that she was representing other property owners. She went on to describe the neighborhood and asked several questions about the site plan. Ms. Bowers asked if it would not be possible to exit back to West -14th instead of Izard. It was determined that the necessary driveway for the exit would be too close to Izard Street and would not receive approval from the Traffic Engineer. There was a long dicussion about the proposed site plan and the alley. Ms. Bowers said that there was a problem with trash in the alley and the traffic situation would deteriorate. There were other comments made by various individuals and some discussion about the August 18, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued need to have a fence along the south property line. A motion was made to grant the variance for a 20' enroachment on the north and a 5' encroachment on the east (Izard) side with a privacy fence being constructed along the south property line. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. 8 - Z-4717 Owner: Earl Bond Address: 301 North Woodrow Description: Lot 6, Block 2, Midland Hill Addition Zoned: "R-3" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area exception provisions of Section 5-101 /F.2.0 to permit a pool to occupy more than 30 percent of the required rear yard. Justification: The size of the pool is 16x32 and the lot is only 50 feet wide. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a swimming pool, an accessory structure, to occupy more than 30 percent of the rear yard. The Zoning Ordinance prohibits rear yard coverage to exceed 30 percent in the "R-1" through. "R-4" districts. The placement of the pool appears to be the only option available because of an existing garage and some paved areas. The location should not have any impact on other properties because there was a street to the south and an alley abutting the lot on the east. Also to the east there is a large nonresidential use, the Arkansas School for the Blind and Deaf. There are no outstanding issues associated with the request and staff supports the variance. Staff would like to point out that the pool is in the ground and near completion. This situation occurred after the owner requested administrative relief and was rejected. He was then instructed to file for the necessary variance and after that the pool construction was initiated. August 18, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Earl Bond, was present. There were no objectors. Staff informed the Board about AP &L's position and that the owner should contact AP &L as soon as possible. Mr. Bond said that he was aware of AP &L's objections to the pool's location and that was only concerning lines going to the residence. Mr. Bond indicated that those lines would be moved in the future because of some planned remodeling. A motion was made to grant the variance with the condition that the power lines be moved as soon as possible. After several comments that motion was withdrawn. A second motion was made to grant the variance subject to AP &L's approval of the pool's location. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. August 18, 1986 Item No. 9 - Other Matters Request: To review the placement of "soda vending machines" on lots zoned for residential uses. (See attached correspondences). BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Ezekil Kinchen, Jr., who had requested that the issue be brought before the Board of Adjustment, was present. Staff briefly reviewed the issue and presented some background on the matter. Mr. Kinchen then addressed the Board. He discussed his long -range plans and said that the vending machine was not creating any problems for the neighborhood. He went on to say that he placed the machine in his yard to provide a service for the residents of the area and to generate some income. Kenny Soctt of the Zoning Enforcement Office said that over the last three years there had been a significant increase in the number of vending machines and it was becoming a problem. Mr. Scott also said that the City was issuing notices to remove the machines because of being a violation. Mr. Kinchen made several other comments about contacting the Zoning or Permits Office and that he had what would be considered a charitable organization, a youth center. There was a long discussion about the various issues associated with this matter. A motion was then offered by Mr. McGowan which stated that as an interpretative matter, a soda vending machine on a lot zoned for residential use is not a permissable activity. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and absent. August 18, 1986 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. Secretary Chairman Date