Loading...
boa_09 15 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES September 15, 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 of the meeting were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Thomas McGowan Jim Mitchell Herbert Rideout Joe Norcross Richard Yada John McDaniel Members Absent: Ronald Pierce George Wells Ronald Woods City Attorney: Steven Giles September 15, 1986 Item No. 1 - Z-2647-A Owner: Baird, Inc. Address: 4500 block of West 12th Street Description: Lots 1 through 6, Block 31 Cunningham Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the setback provisions of Section 7-103.3/E.3 to permit a new building with a 5' rear yard. Justification: In order to properly layout the building along with the required loading and parking for the store, the owners are requesting a variance of 10' from the required 15' setback from the rear property line. To place the building 15' from the rear line will eliminate one complete row of frontal parking which is then not adequate to meet the code or the store requirements. The topography of this land does not lend itself to any other types of development and the waiving of the setback requirement will not create a nuisance or hardship on any of the adjoining properties. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No adverse comments have been reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit an encroachment into the required rear yard. In the "C-3" district, the rear yard can be reduced to 15' when providing a 25' exterior side yard which is the case with this proposal. The applicant is requesting that the yard September 15, 1986 Item No. 1 - Continued be reduced to 5' or an intrusion of 10' into the rear setback. Along the north side of the property there is a platted alley which is not in use and the residences to the north have a rear yard relationship to the site under consideration. Because of those spaces, there will still be adequate separation between the commercial building and the residential structures even with the reduced setback. In the immediate area, there are commercial buildings constructed with little or no setback adjacent to an alley and it does not appear that those locations have had an impact on the neighborhood. The applicant has stated that to provide the necessary parking and because of the topography, the proposed site plan is the only design option available to allow for a functional use of the land. Staff feels that adequate justification has been furnished and supports the request, but recommends that a screening fence be built along the north property line to offer the residents additional protection. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the rear yard variance subject to a screening fence being constructed along the north property line. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The application was represented by Mr. C.J. Cropper. Mr. Cropper made a brief comment on the proposal stating that they could accept the staff recommendation. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, the Board voted to approve the variance as recommended by the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 15, 1986 Item No. 2 - Z-4618 Owner: David S. Boswell Address: 12 Younger Place Description: Lot 12, Parkway Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the front yard provisions of Section 7-101.2 /D.1 to permit a carport with a reduced setback. Justification: Only feasible location available. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are no engineering issues. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board is to permit an encroachment into the front yard for an open carport. In the "R-2" District, 25' is required for the front yard setback. The owner is proposing to place a 10' x 24' carport, attached to the residence, over an existing driveway. The location does appear to be the only reasonably one available and a large tree should help screen it somewhat. Staff is concerned about the length of the proposed carport because the 24' seems to be a little excessive. Also, a 10' setback from the street is not very desirable and could create some problems. By decreasing the length of the carport to 20' which is an adequate size, the front yard would be increased to 14' and staff feels more comfortable with that type of a setback. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the setback variance for an open carport with an east /west dimension of 20' and not 24' as proposed. September 15, 1986 Item No. 2 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present and made a brief comment concerning the dimension of the carport and his understanding of what the dimension should be. The staff recommendation was explained. The applicant then determined that he could live with the 20' as recommended by staff. There were no objectors present. A motion was made for approval of the variance with a 20' east /west dimension as recommended by Planning staff. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 15, 1986 Item No. 3 - Z-4723 Owner: 2611 Kavanaugh Partnership Address: 2611 Kavanaugh Description: The west 40' of Lots 1 and 2, Block 16 Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the off - street parking provisions of Section 8-101/H to permit no off-street parking. Justification: (See attached letter). Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Engineering does not support the variance and suggests that the existing parking problems should not be increased by allowing more intense uses. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the board is to grant a parking variance to allow no off-street parking. The lot in question has one builidng on it with two leasable spaces in it. The site is zoned "C-3" and the Zoning Enforcement Office has determined that because of the parking deficiencies, no uses requiring a parking ratio greater than 1 space per 300 square feet will be issued a privilege license. The site basically has a nonconforming status and only those uses that require parking for a retail establishment will be allowed. This excludes certain uses such as eating places, and that is why this request is being made. The owners of the bulding have been able to only lease one side of the structure, and the other space has remained vacant because certain parties have been denied privilege licenses by the City. This has occurred because those proposed uses have been primarily eating places which require 1 parking space per 100 square feet. In July, 1986, the owners of the property in question requested September 15, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued that the Board of Adjustment review the parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance because of the privilege license denials. At that time, it was noted that the Zoning Ordinance is very specific in setting out parking standards and makes no allowances for older areas versus newly developed ones. Staff also outlined the Board of Directors directive on controlling occupancy changes which increase parking requirements and it was pointed out because certain uses are nonconforming as to parking, that a like kind of use could occupy the space, but that an use, an eating place, requiring a greater parking requirement could not. The Board affirmed the staff policy direction and recommended to the owners that a variance request could be made to review the specific situation. Staff feels that allowing a parking variance for no off - street parking will have an impact on other properties in the neighborhood and that the building status permits some of the "C-3" uses so a hardship does not exist. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the parking variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Jim Moses was present representing the request. Mr. Moses first offered that the total variance of parking was a solution to maintaining the Hillcrest area as it is currently composed without the additional land clearing and removal of structures that would be required to introduce significant parking spaces. He further stated that he had been working with the Pulaski Heights Presbyterian Church for purposes of drafting an agreement to utilize a portion of their parking at the corner of Walnut Street and Woodlawn. He presented an agreement to the Board with four points of understanding that had been agreed to by the Church on the 14th. He proceeded to describe the existing structure and the uses in place. He identified the use requesting the variance as Sheri's Natural Food Grocery and Food Sales, this being a small restaurant operation. The current tenant occupies approximately one half of the available store space which is about 3400 square feet total in both sides of the building. He indicated that this business might at some point desire to expand into the other half of the structure. A discussion then followed centered on a means to develop a commitment from the Church whereby a specific lease or arrangement could be developed for a period of years. Th staff suggested that should an agreement be structured, that a variance would be required September 15, 1986 Item No. 3 - Continued from the church in order to accommodate that agreement, even if todays's variance is approved. Mr. Everett Brown the operator of the Ice House and Cabaret Club, an adjacent owner, presented comments relative to his position on the existing business and the parking variance. He stated that he did not oppose the usage of the premises, but did not desire to see more parking demand without additional parking. He felt that people utilizing this food service would not desire to walk over a block from Woodlawn to this location. A lengthy general discussion then followed at the end of which Mr. Moses requested of the Board that the variance be withdrawn in order that he might pursue further the agreement with the church. A motion was then made to accept Mr. Moses request. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes 0 noes and 3 absent. Mr. Tony Bozynski July 3, 1986 Office of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Little Rock, AR 72201 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 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 if 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, James A. Moses JAM /mlb September 15, 1986 Item No. 4 - Z-4724 Owner: Judith and J. Dale Dawson Address: 5408 Centerwood Description: Lot 93, Prospect Terrace Second Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit an addition with a reduced side yard. Justification: Because of the existing structure and design of the house and the space required, the only reasonable method of expanding the kitchen area is to build a 10' 8" addition on the west side of the house adjacent to the existing kitchen. Only with an addition of this size will the owners be able to accommodate the appliances, structural design and sufficient eating area. The design and appearance of the addition will compliment the existing exterior of the house and will not extend any higher or closer to the property line than the existing carport. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been reported. B. Staff Analvsis The proposal is to make an addition to the existing kitchen and reduce the side yard to 1.51. For a 50' lot in the "R -2" district, the required side yard setback is 5'. The request is to permit a 10' x 13' expansion to th kitchen located on the west side of the residence. The addition, if approved, will maintain September 15, 1986 Item No. 4 - Continued the same setback the existing carport has located directly north of the new construction. A significant reduction of side yards for an open carport is acceptable, but staff is concerned with a similar setback for an extension of the living area. After reviewing the proposal, staff recommends that the side yard for the addition be increased to 3' which would be an encroachment of 2'. This would be more desirable and should not affect the appearance of the expansion. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance for a 3' side yard and not 1.5' as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION; The applicant was present and made a brief comment in which he stated that he could accept the staff's recommendation and make his project work. There were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made for approval of the variance as recommended by the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 15, 1986 Item No. 5 - Z-4725 Owner: B & B Oil Company Address: 6920 Asher Avenue Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C -3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the setback provisions of Section 7-103.3/E.1 to permit a new canopy with a reduced front yard. Justification: To build back the new canopy no closer to the front property line than the existing canopy is at this time. The new canopy will match other new structures and will improve the overall appearance of the property. Present Use of Property: Service Station Proposed Use of Property: Convenience Store with gas pumps STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are no issues. B. Staff Analysis The request is to construct a new canopy with a setback of approximately 81. In the "C-3" district, the required front yard area is 25'. The proposal is to remove the existing canopy and to replace it with a larger one to accommodate four pump islands instead of the two that currently exist. The new canopy will maintain the same south line as the existing one which has not created any problems for the area. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. September 15, 1986 Item No. 5 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was represented by Mr. Steve Lightle. Mr. Lightle offered that he had no additional comments to make. There were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made for approval of the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 15, 1986 Item No. 6 - Z-4726 Owner: Mark W. Grobmyer Address: 39 Beverly Place Description: Lot 12, Beverly Place Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 and 3 to permit new construction with reduced side and rear yards. Justification: Because the existing garage would be converted into an additional bedroom, it will become necessary to add an unenclosed covered parking structure to protect the vehicles. In connection with this, the owner has proposed to modify an existing addition on the side of the house and expand it for room for two automobiles. In this neighborhood, the street is very narrow and winding. With many children in the area, we deem it dangerous to park vehicles in the street particularly because of unusual configurations of the street itself. Because parking is therefore a problem, we feel the best solution to accommodate adequate parking and protect our vehicles would be to build the proposed carport structure. The carports design will be consistent with the existing structure and will in fact make it more visually appealing than it is now. Present Use of Property: Single Family Propsoed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been reported. September 15, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued B. Staff Analysis The request is to grant variances for a 0' side yard on the north and for a 3.5' rear yard. The required setbacks are 7' for the sideyard and 25' for the rear yard. The proposal is to convert the existing garage located in the rear yard into a bedroom and attach it to a two -story addition by a one -story connection and this creates the need for the rear yard variance. Because the garage structure is in place and some rear yard will remain, staff feels that the encroachment is not a problem and supports the variance for the rear yard. The side yard issue involves construction of a carport with a 0' setback along the north property line, if granted. Currently, on that side of the structure is a sun -room with a setback of 12.5' that will be removed to accommodate the new carport. At the end of the carport, a storage area is proposed so it will only be open on two sides. Staff feels that the side yard variance has not been adequately justified and cannot support the request. It appears that there is adequate area, approximately 22.5 feet, between the residence and the property line to explore other options for a carport that will maintain a side yard. (The dimension of 22.5' is assuming that the existing sun -room will be removed for any type of carport). One possible alternative is to provide a covered area that will allow an end to end parking arrangement for the vehicles and still keep a side yard setback. With the amount of construction taking place in the rear, minimum yard area should be provided wherever possible, such as on the north side. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the side yard variance and approval of the rear yard variance subject to the existing garage being a one -story conversion only. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present and offered comments concerning the staff recommendation and identified concerns of an adjacent owner, Mr. Frank Whitbeck. He described his circumstances and stated that he was working with the neighbor to resolve questions concerning his plans, especially those involving a swimming pool. The swimming pool issue was described as a future separate issue. He further stated that he could accept the staff recommendation on the one -story restriction for the existing garage September 15, 1986 Item No. 6 - Continued conversion and restated his written request for removal of the side yard variance at this time. He stated that he would pursue that issue at a later date. Mr. Chris Barrier, an attorney representing Mr. Frank Whitbeck offered concerns about the proposed pool and its absence from this proposal. He indicated that his client had concerns about lighting, screening and exactly what is included in this request. He further stated that the lot involved was rather small and that variances and structural involvements needed special attention. A general discussion then followed wherein the staff and Board identified for the applicant that the swimming pool would be considered a separate issue and no variances were being extended at this time. A motion was made to approve the application as modified with the one -story conversion on the garage and with the elimination of the side yard request. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 15, 1986 Item No. 7 - Z-4727 Owner: M. Hamid Hussain Address: 8902 Mayflower Description: Lot 15, Block 3, Penbrook Subdivision Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit expansion of an existing carport with no setback. Justification: To provide protection from the elements. Present Use of Property: Single Family Propsoed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis This issue is before the Board because of an enforcement action. The owner constructed the expansion prior to any review by the City and a complaint was made. When the owner tried to obtain the building permit, it was determined that a side yard variance would have to be obtained first. The request involves an existing covered area that was enlarged by approximately 7' to provide better protection for autos. The new construction was extended to the east property line to match the existing structure which has no setback for the side yard. It appears that the initial covered area was constructed without any review or approval by the City also. That type of situation should justify the expansion of a questionable structure and staff does not support the request. Allowing a total encroachment into a side yard or a 0' setback is undesirable and could have an impact on the neighborhood. If a covered carport area is needed, the rear yard is large enough to accommodate one with the area between the residence and fence functioning as the driveway. This arrangement could probably be accomplished without any type of variance. September 15, 1986 Item No. 7 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the variance as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present and offered a brief comment that he felt he could and would accept the staff recommendation of denial. The Board briefly discussed the issue at which time it was pointed out by staff that there was one letter of opposition from an adjacent neighbor. A motion was then made to deny the request. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 15, 1986 Item No. 8 - Z-4732 Owner: H. Thurston and Mary O. Black Address: #10 Armistead Road Description: Lot 23, Edgehill Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2 /D.1 to permit an addition with a reduced front yard. Justification: 1. The existing physical location on the corner of what has been interpreted as two frontage streets is requiring 25' setbacks on three sides of the property where most conditions would require only an 8 to 10' setback at this location on the property. 2. The setback arrangement does not now have a garage, covered carport or any other form of protected storage for automobiles or other equipment. An addition of this type is needed and warranted from a security and convenience standpoint, especially since most if not all adjacent properties have such conditions. 3. The applicant is intending to build an attractive well designed two -story garage addition that will allow the property to meet functional requirements not presently available. This addition moreover will provide an aesthetic condition to the house and neighborhood. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family September 15, 1986 Item No. 8 - Continued STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No adverse comments have been reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to permit a two -story addition to be constructed with a reducced front yard setback. The Zoning Ordinance states "in the case of a double frontage lot or a corner lot, each line separating such lot from the street shall be considered a front lot line." Twenty -five feet (25') is the required front yard setback in the "R-2" district, so with this proposal the encroachment will be 10' if granted. The 15' setback is only at one point, and the yard area increases from east to west to more than 30' on the west side of the addition. Because of the shape of the lot and having two front yards, a hardship does exist and staff supports the request. Also, the proposed location of the addition is the only viable option available to accommodate the needs of the owner and still be visually attractive. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owners architect was present representing the proposal. There were no objectors in attendance. A brief discussion was followed by a motion to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 15, 1986 Item No. 9 - Z-4736 Owner: City of Little Rock Address: 718 West Markham Description: Lots 7, 8 and the West 12' of Lot 9 Block 136, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: "C-4" Open Display Variance Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-103.4/D to permit a new building with a reduced front and side yard. Justification: The design of the new addition has a considerable setback over the previous structures on the lot. The Neva Talley building at the corner of Markham and State was constructed all the way to the edge of the sidewalk. The two structures have been demolished and the addition will be more attractive and provide a reasonable setback for office building construction. The present zoning was a conversion and not consistent with the downtown business building construction. The proposed construction is the best use of the property and a variance approval is necessary for building expansion. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: City Offices STAFF REPORT: A. Engineerinq Issues Engineering reports that two handicapped ramps, one for State and one for West Markham, are needed. The proposed site plan only shows one at the intersection and that is unacceptable. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a new building attached to an existing structure to the east with a reduced front September 15, 1986 Item No. 9 - Continued yard and side yard on the west. The site in question is zoned "C-4" which requires a 45' front yard and because of being situated at a corner, the 45' setback is also required for State Street because of being an exterior side. The existing "C-4" zoning is the result of the City converting from the old Zoning Ordinance to the current one and making "C-4" the highway commercial district. That type of a zoning classification is inappropriate for the downtown area and the required setbacks are uncharacteristic of the existing development. For the property under consideration, the 11C -4" zoning creates a hardship because of the lot size and staff supports the request. Even with the encroachment, the new construction will be an improvement over the previous building and will be an attractive addition to the block. Staff does suggest that other parking options be explored because of the alley to the north being utilized for maneuvering in and out of the spaces. This could create a potential problem because the alley is heavily travelled, expecially by Police vehicles. (The proposed site plan shows a parking area coming off the alley directly north of the building). C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the setback variances as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The application was represented by Mr. Wendell Jones who stated he had no additional comments to make. There were no objectors in attendance. After a brief dicusssion, a motion was made to approve the variance as submitted. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. September 15, 1986 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Secretary Chairman Date