boa_07 01 1986LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SPECIAL MEETING
MINUTE RECORD
JULY 1, 1986
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being seven in number.
I. Members Present: Joe Norcross
John McDaniel
Richard Yada
Jim Mitchell
Thomas McGowan
Herbert Rideout
Ronald Pierce
Members Absent: George Wells
Ronald Woods
July 1, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z-4577-B
Owner: UPS Incorporated
Address: 5501 Fourche Dam Pike
Description: Long Legal (44 acres ±)
Zoned: "I-1" Industrial Park
Variance
Requested: 1. From the side yard provisions of
Section 7-104.1/E.2 to permit a
new building with a reduced setback
2. From the development criteria of
Section 7-104.1/B.2 to waive the
screening requirements
Justification: None provided
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Motor Freight Terminal
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The requested variances are for the new UPS site to be
located east of the airport at Fourche Dam Pike and
Fourche Dam Pike relocated. The Zoning Ordinance
requires a side yard of 30 feet in the "I-1" district
and UPS is asking for encroachment of 13 to 14 feet on
the south side for a single building. In addition, UPS
is also requesting a waiver of the fencing
requirements. For the "I-1" district, the Zoning
Ordinance states that:
Every use, or any part thereof, that is not
conducted within a building completely enclosed on
all sides shall be enclosed within a wall or fence
6 feet in height. Such wall or fence shall
completely screen all operations conducted within
such wall or fence from observation. No exterior
storage area shall encroach into any of the
required yards.
July 1, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
In this particular situation, a fence would be required
along the south property line. Staff feels that the
fencing requirement should be met along the south side
for the most part. This is an area that will have a
lot of vehicular activity, such as truck staging, and
it should be screened as much as possible. The new UPS
location is part of a large tract of land, zoned "I-1,"
to be serviced by a road that is proposed to be located
adjacent to the south line of the UPS property.
Because of the new street and its right-of-way, the
reduced setback will not have an impact on any of the
properties to the south. With the street and setback
requirements for buildings on the south side of the new
road, there will still be adequate separation between
the structure under consideration and future ones on
the south side of the street.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the requested side yard variance
be granted and that a screening fence be provided along
the south line from a point west of the wash building
and back to the east for a distance of approximately
900 feet.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
Bill Putnam was present and indicated that he was
representing UPS. There were seven to eight persons in
attendance who expressed an interest in the case.
Mr. Putnam described the site and the remaining 40± acres to
the south. He said because of that area of land and a
proposed street there was no reason for a screening fence.
Don Shaheen, an engineer with UPS, said that all work takes
place inside the facility and that there was no outside
storage. He went on to say that UPS has high appearance
standards and that a fence could cause some maintenance
problems. Johrik Poorian, an UPS representative, discussed
lighting and other design considerations for the site. He
also said that there was a time problem with the fence.
Mary D. Cooper, a resident of the area, then reviewed the
history of the site and the "I -1" District. Ms. Cooper then
read a written statement which said that the residents were
opposed to setback request and any variances from the
screening requirement. She said that there were problems
with the existing site work because only one row of trees
was left and not two as had been promised. Mr. Poorian and
Mr. Putnam both responded to Ms. Cooper's statements.
Mr. Putnam said that at the time of the rezoning hearing, he
indicated that two rows of trees would be left on the north
side. There was a long discussion about landscaping.
July 1, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
John Hall, another resident of the area, spoke and asked
several questions about the various requirements.
Mr. Putnam answered questions and made some additional
comments. Ms. Cooper spoke again and discussed the various
issues. At this point, a motion was then offered which
recommended that all the concerns of the residents,
including landscaping and screening be referred back to the
Planning Commission for review. The motion was approved by
a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. There were some
additional comments made by the various parties, including
Mr. Shaheen. A motion was made which recommended that the
side yard variance be granted as requested and that a chain
link fence be allowed which not only meets the City's
requirements but also staff's approval to serve the purpose
of screening in a natural way the side as best possible and
for staff to have the authority to accept that plan if and
when it meets that intent. The plan should not only follow
the Landscaping Ordinance but that it meet the intent of
trying to provide a natural screen for the site in lieu of
an opaque fence. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0
noes and 2 absent.
July 1, 1986
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
at 2:45 P.M.
Chairman
Secretary
Date