boa_02 22 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND MINUTES
FEBRUARY 22, 1988
2:00 P.M.
I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being seven in number.
II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting
The minutes were approved as mailed.
III. Members Present: John McDaniels - Chairman
Jim Mitchell
Earline Douglas
Eduard Scharff
Thomas McGowan
Rex Crain
Ronald Pierce
Members Absent: George Wells
Cynthia Alderman
City Attorney Present: Pat Benton
February 22, 1988
Item No. A - Z-4950
Owner: Sarah Collins
Address: 2524 Izard Street
Description: Lot 7, Block 32, Kimball's South Park
Addition
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance
Requested: From the area regulations provisions of
Section 7-101.2 /D.1 to permit a front
yard less than 25 feet.
Justification: We are unable to build a house due to
the 25 foot setback requirement on West
26th Street.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The applicant is requesting of the Board of Adjustment
approval of a front yard setback of 20 feet rather than
the required 25 feet as stated in the Ordinance. The
lot is presently vacant and located in the Quapaw
Quarter. The lot fronts on Izard Street and West 26th
Street, which because of it being a corner lot, is
required to have to front yard setbacks of 25 feet.
Located in this area of central Little Rock are a
number of different sizes and styles of homes.
Surrounding this property there are some older homes
that have been or are presently being renovated. The
site is elevated which gives the site appearance of
both Izard and West 26th Street being lower in
elevation. The applicant does have a hardship because
of the lot being on the corner and having to provide 25
feet on both frontages.
February 22, 1988
Item No. A - Continued
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87)
Mr. Brett Swearingen of Jim Walter's Homes represent the
applicant. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff
informed the Board that there was a problem with the notice
requirement being met. The notice form was returned with
only three signatures. The lot is 50 feet in width and if
proper notice was given within 200 feet of the property
there should have been more names. Mr. Swearingen stated
that an attempt was made to obtain the signatures, but most
of the people were renters and not owners. Staff then
informed the Board that the requirements for the notice does
not require a certified abstract list, but it is impressed
upon the applicant the importance of meeting the notice
requirement no matter the resources. A motion was then made
to defer this item for a 30 -day period and the applicant was
instructed to obtain the necessary signatures by the next
meeting on January 19, 1988. The motion passed by a vote of
9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
No action was taken on this item due to the fact neither the
applicant nor a representative was in attendance at the
meeting and the staff still had not received proof that the
notice requirement had been completed. Staff made the
decision that this item is to be allowed to appear on the
February 22, 1988, agenda and that correspondence will be
sent informing the applicant.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
The applicant was not present at the meeting. Staff
recommended to the Board that this item be withdrawn due to
the fact the applicant still had not met the notice
requirement, and this was the third time this item had
appeared on the agenda. A motion was then made to withdraw
this item. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
3 absent.
February 22, 1988
Item No. B - Z-4692
Owner: Allan R. and Dana A. Snook
Address: 4116 Longview Road
Description: Lot 30, Lonlea Addition, Phase VIII-C
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variances 1. From the area provisions of
Requested: Section 7-101.2-D.3 to permit an
addition with a reduced rear yard
setback.
2. From the area exception provisions
of Section 5-102.2-C to permit more than
30 percent of the rear yard coverage.
Justification: A Building Permit was not applied for by
either contractor (pool and deck)
because both thought the other had done
so. We were negligent in failing to get
a permit, but it was an honest mistake.
Present Use of
Property: Single Family
Proposed Use
of Property: Single Family
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
The deck should not encroach into the rear easement
unless approved in writing by the easement's utility.
B. Staff Analysis
As a result of an enforcement action, this request is
before the Board of Adjustment. The applicant has
already constructed in placed an in- ground swimming pool
with wood decking surrounding the pool. Along the rear
property, and both rear side yards, a wooden privacy
fence is constructed that has heights of 12 feet along
certain areas of the rear and six feet along the
remaining rear yard area and rear side yards. The fence
is constructed in this manner in order to compensate for
the difference in the grades on the property as well as
the slope of the property. The applicant states that
without the construction of the wooden decking to
correct the grade problem, they could not have utilized
the area around the pool. The slope of the property
falls from the left to right with a drop of nine feet.
February 22, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
Located to the rear of the property is a utility
easement of five feet that the applicant has built over
without any proper notice or approval from the utility
company. Staff has informed the applicant that some
documentation from the utility company has to be
obtained.
What is of issue before the Board of Adjustment is the
fact the applicant has encroached with the 25-foot rear
yard setback that is required by the Ordinance. The
wood decking and swimming pool exist within a large
portion of the rear yard and extends to the fence which
is along the rear property; therefore, the applicant is
requesting a rear yard setback of zero feet to
compensate for the construction.
Staff also feels that in as much as the construction
takes in a large portion of the rear yard, a variance
for more than 30 percent of the rear yard coverage is of
issue also. As state earlier, the swimming pool, wooden
decking and fence are already in place without the
applicant having obtained any Building Permits.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff is recommending approval, subject to (1) mature
evergreen plantings being placed along the south
property line, outside of the fence and the planting
being agreed upon by the neighbor to the rear and
approved by the Zoning Enforcement Office, (2) as per
Engineering comment, a letter from the utility whose
easement the applicant has built over stating its
position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (1-19-88)
Mr. Allan Snook, the applicant, was in attendance.
Mr. Rob Wilson, Attorney for Mrs. Patricia Bueter, the
neighbor to the south, was present as well as Mrs. Bueter.
February 22, 1988
Item No. B - Continued
Mr. Snook addressed the Board and discussed the events which
had led up to the point of the meeting. He stated that he
had tried on a number of occasions to work with Mrs. Bueter
regarding her complaint and now feels that to obtain a
variance would be the most feasible means of resolving the
isssue.
Mr. Rob Wilson, the Attorney for the neighbor, stated the
fence around Mr. Snook's rear yard was most offensive.
Mrs. Bueter's property fronts the rear of Mr. Snooks, and
Mrs. Bueter feels that to grant the variance would be
allowing Mr. Snook to circumvent the law. If the variance
is to be approved, what then will keep the next person from
just going ahead building what would be a violation of the
zoning requirements and then coming in for a variance?
Mr. Snook presented a sketch of a landscaping layout that he
had Melburger, Tanner and Associates draw up to be placed
along the south property line. Mr. Wilson then stated that
Mrs. Bueter also had a landscaping plan that she felt was
more in line with the intent of screening the view of the
fence.
The Board then reviewed both plans and stated that there
should be some way for these two parties to work out their
disagreement and both be satisfied. The Board agreed that
some type of policy should be adopted to address this issue
in the Ordinance because it's not the applicant's fault, but
that of the Contractor.
A motion was then made to defer this item for a period of
30 days to allow both parties to meet and resolve this
matter between themselves. Both the applicant and the
objector agreed with the motion. The motion passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. This item will appear
before the Board again on February 22, 1988.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
Mr. Don Chambers represented the applicant. There were no
objectors present. Mr. Chambers submitted to the Board a
copy of the agreement reached between the applicant and
Mr. and Mr. Bruter, the neighbors to the rear of the
property. A motion was then made to approve the variance
subject to the agreement reached between the two parties as
well as a copy of the landscaping plan being submitted to
staff and made part of the file. The motion passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 1 - Z-4336-D
Owner: Arkansas Children's Hospital
Address: Marshall Street 8th, 10th and
Battery Streets
Description: Lot 11, Marshall and Wolfe's Addition
to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas
Zoned: "O-2" Office and Institutional
Variances 1. From the landscape provisions
Requested: Section 7-102.2-B.6 to permit an
addition in the area required for
landscaping.
2. From the area provisions of
Section 7-102.2-E.1 to permit a
front yard setback.
Justification: The purpose of the requested variances
are to allow for additional floor space
to serve the needs of the Arkansas
Children's Hospital.
Present Use
of Property: Institutional
Proposed Use
of Property: Institutional
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
None to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analvsis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment at this time
is a request to allow for the construction of an
addition that will encroach within the front yard
setback as well as the required landscaping area as
stated in the Ordinance. For a front yard setback in a
"0 -2" zoning, the requirement is 25 feet and the
applicant is proposing 5 feet. The Ordinance also
stipulates that a 25 -foot landscaping strip be parallel
February 22, 1988
Item No. 1 - Continued
to and abutting any boundary streets shall be provided
and maintained by the owner(s), and in which no parking
of wheel vehicles shall be allowed. Inasmuch as the
applicant has requested a reduced front yard, it would
be impossible for the landscaping provisions of the
Ordinance to be met.
The addition to which the requested variances are
intended is the Strauss Building or medical office
building on the block defined by Marshall, Wolfe, 9th
and 10th Streets. The addition will be one story with
a full basement occupying roughly 9,500 sq. ft. of the
site. The area of the site to be occupied by the
addition is at the south, facing 10th Street. The
addition will house clinical space.
Staff feels that the applicant does display a hardship
by not being able to provide for both the 25 feet of
frontage on 10th Street and the landscaping strip as
stated by the Ordinance. The applicant's request is
reasonable and is consistent with structures presently
in the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
Mr. Edward Peek represented the applicant, Arkansas
Children's Hospital. There were no objectors present.
Mr Peek was asked if he had any objections or problems with
staff's recommendation, and he stated, no. A Board member
then asked Mr. Peek if a parking deck was still part of the
overall building plan for Children's Hospital. Mr. Peek
stated, yes, but that the parking deck was not to his
knowledge planned for the near future. Mr. Peek was then
asked how would parking be addressed in future expansions.
Mr. Peek stated that he could not address that concern at
this time. A motion was then made to approve the variance
as filed conditioned upon for any future variance request,
the applicant would have to show means of supplying parking.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent,
1 abstention (Scharff).
February 22, 1988
Item No. 2 - Z-4977
Owner: Roy L. Klober
Address: #30 Bertwood
Description: Lot 15, Block 7, Cedar Ridge Addition
to the City of Little Rock
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
Variance From the subdivision provisions
Requested: of Section 37.10-C to cross a platted
building line.
Justification: 1. Due to the extreme slope of the lot,
I have constructed the house as close
to ground level as good building
practices will allow.
2. There are no other alternate
locations on the lot to construct the
house that would not distract from the
astatics of the neighborhood.
Present Use
of Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues to be reported.
B. Staff Analysis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is for
consideration to allow an already- constructed porch
with steps and railings to remain. This filing was due
to an enforcement action. In building the porch, the
applicant has crossed a platted 25-foot building line
setback. The Ordinance states that any encroachment
within a platted builiding line must first be approved
by this Board. Secondly, an amended Bill of Assurance
has to be filed as well as, third, the filing of a
one-lot replat.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 2 - Continued
The elevation of the undercovered porch is
approximately nine feet above ground level and for this
reason, the applicant feels the steps had to encroach
into the building setback. This site is located in one
of the newly developed areas and fronts on a
cul -de -sac. The drive has a steep incline and the
steps are directed toward the driveway. The foundation
and retaining walls are faced with bricks.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed.
The applicant is to understand that the two additional steps
to the process of a building line waiver will have to be met
which include the filing of an amended Bill of Assurance and
a one -lot replat.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
Mr. Terry D. Klober represented the applicant. There were
no objectors present. Mr. Klober stated he had no problems
with staff's recommendation except he did not understand
what was meant by a one lot replat. Staff stated to him
that meant he would have to submit an engineering plat of
the new building line and that the new building line would
have to be filed in the Planning Office and at the County
Courthouse. A motion was made to approve the variance
subject to the filing of a one lot replat and amended Bill
of Assurance. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 3 - Z-4978
Owner: Veron Hensley
Address: 307 North Elm
Description: Lot 15, Block 2, Riffel and Rhoton's
Richland Heights Additon to the City
of Little Rock, Arkansas
Zoned: "R-4" Two Family District
Variance From the height and area provisions
Requested: of Section 5-102.2-B to permit an
accessory structure less than six feet
from a principle structure.
Justification: The applicant is concerned about
protection going to and from his shop
in bad weather and also needs more
space.
Present Use
of Property: Residential
Proposed Use
of Property: Residential
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are no issues to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
This request is before the Board because of an
enforcement action. The applicant has constructed a
new two -story addition to the rear of the house.
Presently on site is a garage located in the rear.
With the construction of the new addition, the
applicant allowed for only three feet of separation
between the garage and principle structure. The
Ordinance states that an accessory structure has to be
at least six feet from the principle structure.
Misreading of the instructions by the Contractor
allowed for the reenforcement foundation to be poured
three inches higher than other grade.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 3 - Continued
The site in question has on it a two-story framed
house. A garage (storage building) is being used to
house a washer and dryer, freezer and shop area. The
location is in one of the more established residential
areas of the City.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommendation approval conditioned upon the space
separating the two structures remaining open, no fence or
gate can be constructed in order to connect the structures
nor can the garage (storage area) ever be converted to
accommodate a separate dwelling unit.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
The applicant stated that he had no objections to staff's
recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the
variance subject to staff's recommendation. The motion
passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 4 - Z-4979
Owner: Twin City Transportation, Inc.
Address: 1609 East 3rd Street
Description: Lot 1, of Glass's Replat of Lots 1,
2, 10, 11 and 12, Block 2, of the
Garland Addition to the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas
Zoned: "I -2" Light Industrial
Variance From the area provisions of
Requested: Section 7- 104.2 -E.1 and 2 to permit a
reduced front and side yard setbacks.
Justification: If the shop is constructed at the
location now called for by the
Ordinance, it will for all practical
purposes make our parking lot useless
for its original purpose.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The issues before the Board of Adjustment is that of a
reduced front and side yard setback. The property is
zoned "I -2" Light Industrial. Front yard setbacks in
this zoning are to be 50 feet, the applicant is
requesting six feet. Side yard setbacks are to be 15
feet, the applicant is requesting six feet. The
purpose of the requested variance is to allow for
construction of a maintenance shop in order to do
routine repair work on company trucks. The repair
would take place during the post meridiem work hours.
The applicant feels that if the shop was located in
another area it would obstruct the needed parking area
on site.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 4 - Continued
The site fronts on East 3rd Street with an asphalt
parking area to the front and rear of the site. The
company in question, Twin City Transportation,
encompasses the entire block from East 3rd, East 4th
and Pepper Streets. There are residential uses on East
4th Street and on the east side of the site.
For the present requested variance, staff feels that
the applicant has not demonstrated that a hardship
exists. Due to the fact of the type of use the new
addition would house, it presents a problem that would
impact the residential uses. Staff also feels that the
residential zoning in the area will remain for sometime
in the future. A more suitable location would be to
place the new structure on the west side of the
building. This would still allow for good maneuvering
of the trucks on the site and maintain a suitable
parking area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending denial of the variance as filed due to
the impact the use will have to the residential neighbors.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
Mr. Ron Glass represented the applicant, Twin City
Transportation. Mr. Glass stated that he totally disagreed
with staff's recommendation. If the maintenance building
was to be placed at any other location on the site, he would
not be able to park his trucks nor would they be able to
maneuver on and off the site. He also stated that the
maintenance would be light such as oil changes and that
there would not be any p.m. work hours. The staff reminded
Mr. Glass that when the application was taken he indicated
that there would be p.m. work hours. Staff restated that
the location of the maintenance building at the present
indicated position would place a hardship on the residential
uses abutting the site.
Mr. Glass stated that if he is not allowed to place the
building where he has indicated then he probably would have
to relocate his business due to the fact he purchased the
building materials before he found out that he would not be
able to construct a maintenance area. The maintenance
building is needed because of the expense incurred when
light maintenance is done when trucks are out on the road.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 4 - Continued
Staff was asked by the Board whether the residential uses
would remain in the future. Staff stated that even though
there is industrial zoning in the same vicinity of the site,
the residential property would probably remain because of
what is indicated on the zoning maps.
Several of the Board members felt that a deferral would be
appropriate in order to allow them time to meet on the site
for a visual view in order to get a better feel for what the
applicant was stating and to understand better staff's
reason for denying the request. A motion was then made to
defer the item until the March 21, 1988, meeting. The
motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 5 - Z-4980
Owner: Little Rock Airport Commission
Address: Gates Island - Little Rock Airport
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "R-2" Single Family
variance From the floodplain restrictions of
Requested: Paragraph A (of Paragraph 4) of
Section B of Article 5 of Ordinance
No. 14,534 of the City of Little
Rock, to permit construction of a
runway.
Justification: This request is needed in order to
build a parallel runway for "R-22L"
for the Little Rock Regional Airport.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analvsis
The request before the Board of Adjustment is to allow
for a variance from the floodplain restrictions of
Paragraph A (of Paragraph 4) of Section B of Article 5
of Ordinance No. 14,534 of the City of Little Rock.
The intent of the variance is for the construction of
runway /taxi way enbankment for a new air carrier runway
for "R-22L." The effect of the runway field on future
flood heights on the Arkansas River has been
extensively studied by the Corp of Engineers and the
results of a model study of the field in the floodplain
indicates 0.1 -foot rise in the S.P.F. (Standard Project
Flood) and less than 0.1-foot in the 100-year flood.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 5 - Continued
The development, quality, and results of this
two - dimensional flow model are acceptable. The area
for the new runway is normally known as Gates Island
and involves Tracts 65A and 65B.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval of the floodplain variance as
filed.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
Mr. Gary Shipley represented the applicant, the Little Rock
Airport. There were two objectors present at the meeting.
Mr. Shipley was asked if he had any objections to staff's
recommendation. He stated, no. Mr. Shipley was then
informed of an objection letter received from Massman
Construction Company stating that the proposal would cause
backwater, eddying, and subsequent filling by Massman
Construction of the area immediately upstream of the runway
embankment. Mr. Shipley stated that, no, he did not feel
that the runway would present that type or any type of
problem to the properties upstream due to the fact the rise
to the floodplain as a result of the runway would be minimal
and the Corps of Engineers had given its approval.
Mr. W.H. Griffin, Jr. stated that his concern was where the
fill was going to come from. Mr. Shipley stated that all
the fill would come from the Arkansas River and not the
surrounding properties. Mr. Cliff Weems was concerned about
how the construction of the runway would affect other
property owners in the area. Mr. Shipley stated that he
knew of no effects but Mr. Weems stated what he was
referring to was whether there are federal or state
restrictions regarding whether property surrounding a runway
has to be developed a certain way. No one could address his
concern because they were not familiar with airport
regulations.
Staff then informed Mr. Shipley that the Little Rock Airport
Commission needs to come and discuss with staff procedures
to properly rezone those properties at the Airport that are
still zoned residential which is not appropriate zoning. A
motion was then made to approve the variance as filed. The
motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent,
1 abstention (Pierce).
February 22, 1988
Item No. 6 - Z-4981
Owner: Hot Shots Burgers and Fries, Inc.
Address: 201 North Bowman Road
Description: Lot 10, Markham Commercial Subdivsion
to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance From the commercial district provisions
Requested: of Section 7-103.0-1.2 to permit a
wavier from the requirements.
Justification: This variance is needed because it would
obstruct the view of the building from
the streets.
Present Use of
Property: Vacant
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Engineering Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The issue before the Board of Adjustment at this time
is a request to disallow construction of a six-feet in
height, 20-inch in length, wall along the opposite lane
of a speaker for a drive - through service. The
Ordinance states that this wall when constructed should
be of masonry or wood with a textured finish to
diminish sound deflection. The applicant contends that
due to the fact that this lot is on a corner and will
have two drive-through services available, the
construction of the wall for the speaker on Markham
Park Drive would obstruct the view of the business.
The location of this site is at the northwest corner of
North Bowman and Markham Park Drive. Surrounding the
property are commercials uses and vacant property.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 6 - Continued
Presently this property is vacant, and the commercial
use for which it is intended is Hot Shot's Burger and
Fries which has one other location on Asher Avenue.
The applicant's request is a reasonable one due to the
fact the site is a corner lot and the impact to the
commerical uses would be minimum. If approved, staff
definitely feels that a more define landscaping scheme
should be placed on the site. This corner is presently
and will be in the future a major intersection of
traffic for the City of Little Rock.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending approval subject to the applicant
agreeing to increase the requirement of the Landscaping
Ordinance by 100 percent.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
Mr. Edward Salazar, the representative of Hot Shot Burger
and Fries was in attendance at the meeting. No objectors
were present. Mr. Salazar stated he had no problems with
staff's recommendation. A Board member asked if the 100
percent increase in the landscaping as stated in staff's
recommendation meant that if one plant was required, the
applicant would place two plants. Staff stated, yes, that
is what is meant. A motion was then made to approve the
variance subject to the applicant increasing the landscaping
requirement by 100 percent. The motion passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 7 - Z-1432-A
Owner: Mehlco, Inc.
Address: 7509 Cantrell Road
Description: Long Legal
Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial
Variance From the height regulation provisions
Requested: of Section 7-103.3-D to permit a
tower 148 feet in height.
Justification: The height variance is needed in order
to reach the maximum population
possible for a frequency of 3.0 kw
power.
Present Use of
Property: Commercial
Proposed Use
of Property: Commercial
STAFF REPORT:
A. Enqineerinq Issues
There are none to be reported at this time.
B. Staff Analysis
The application before the Board of Adjustment at this
time is for a height variance of 148 feet. The
property is zoned "C-3" General Commercial and the
allowable height is 35 feet. The intent behind this
request is for a radio tower. If permitted, the tower
will be freestanding and encompass two parking spaces
on the rear southeast corner of the Tanglewood Shopping
Center. The applicant proposes to house the 3.0 kw
low -power frequency radio station on the same site.
Presently on site are commercial and office uses.
Surrounding the property are residential uses to the
south and part of the east. To the north and on the
northeast corner, there are commercial uses and to the
west commercial and residential.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 7 - Continued
Staff feels that the applicant has not adequately
justified a hardship for a height variance. In the
proposed location with a base dimension of 8 1/2 feet
and height of 148 feet, the tower would be a
considerable impact to the residential property. Also
associated with this request, if approved, is the need
for clarification in the Ordinance on whether a radio
station licensed by the public falls within a "C-3"
zoning.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is recommending denial of the variance as filed. The
impact of the size of the base and heiqht would place a
considerable hardship on the residential property.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (2-22-88)
Mrs. Terry Bonner represented the applicant, Mehlco, Inc.
There were no objectors in attendance. Mrs. Bonner stated
that she totally disagreed with staff's recommendation. She
had several concerns, first being - that when she came in to
apply for the variance she was told that she would receive a
copy of staff's recommendation before the meeting. After
discussion, it was learned that Mrs. Bonner had only
received one sheet of the staff's write-up for her item, but
there should have been two sheets. It was then explained
that staff was sorry the mistake happened. Secondly,
Mrs. Bonner wanted clarification as to what was meant by
"C-3" not being a proper zone for a station licensed by the
public. When she filled out the application, she was told
it wa appropriate. Staff stated that particular
clarification was for staff purposes and was put in the
agenda because the City Attorney's Office had not yet made a
determination when the agenda was printed but had since
determined that a radio station licensed by the public, in
fact, came under the "C-3" as interpreted by the Zoning
Ordinance. Mrs. Bonner then stated that the tower would be
low impact and unobtrusive to the residential property and
wanted to know what staff meant by the statement and
recommendation that the tower would place a considerable
hardship on the residential property. Staff stated that due
to the fact the base of the tower would be 8' 6" and the
height would be a 148', it would in staff's opinion place a
bad visual view to those residential neighbors. Another
point that Mrs. Bonner made was there already is a higher as
well as larger tower north of this site on Mississippi that
is most obtrusive and places more impact on those residences
than the tower she is proposing. Staff reminded the Board
that the tower Mrs. Bonner was referring to was
grandfathered (annexed) into the City before the City Zoning
Ordinance was adopted.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 7 - Continued
Mrs. Bonner stated that the tower would take up only two
parking spaces and she had present Mr. Dean Howard, the
engineer for the proposal. Mr. Howard addressed the Board
and spoke in regard to the technical aspect of the proposal.
He explained the type of material the tower would be
constructed of which is aluminum. He also stated that the
tower would be freestanding which means that if the tower
ever fell because of the weather it would not fall forward
but would collapse in a folding manner and not endanger any
of the other property surrounding the site.
Mrs. Bonner was then asked if she planned to place a fence
around the base of the tower. She stated, no, but staff
stated that if the tower was approved, then staff would
strongly recommended a fence be placed around the base to
make it more safe and help prevent any possible intrusion.
Mr. Howard stated he would have to agree with staff's
recommendation. Mrs. Bonner was informed by the Board that
in the past the Board really has not gone along with height
variance for towers because the hardship usually is one of
economic value which is not the type of hardship the Board
is supposed to be concerned about. The question was then
asked by the Board if another site would better serve the
applicant's request. Staff stated that possibly if the
tower was placed at the northwest corner of the site away
from the residential property it would better serve the
area. It would then be on the highest elevation of the site
and still serve the purpose intended which is for the signal
to reach the maximum population of the City. Mrs. Bonner
stated that she felt the site proposed was the best, and
during the discussion with the manager of the Tanglewood
Shopping Center no other site was discussed. Mr. Dwight
Blissard, manager of Tanglewood Shopping Center, then spoke
and stated that no other site was discussed but since the
station would be located in the building adjacent to the
parking lot where the tower is being proposed, the thought
was it would be the best site. The question was then asked
of the applicant and Mr. Blissard if there would be a
problem relocating the tower. Mr. Blissard stated that he
didn't feel it would but agreed with Mrs. Bonner that the
location proposed would be the best. Mrs. Bonner was then
asked if she had any problem with this item being deferred
for 30 days in order to allow time for a different location
or site to be determined. Mrs. Bonner stated that the
deferral would delay her plans because the application to
the FCC has been sent, but rather than the request be denied
she would accept the deferral.
February 22, 1988
Item No. 7 - Continued
A motion was then made to defer the item for a period of 30
days in order to allow the applicant time to find a
different location on the site. The motion passed by a vote
of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 3 absent, 1 abstention (McDaniels). This
item will be heard again at the March 21, 1988, meeting.
The Board then informed Mrs. Bonner that just because the
item was deferred it does not mean that if she comes back
with a different location on -site it will be automatically
approved. They then suggested that she meet with staff and
see if the possible alternative location will work before
the next meeting.
Board of Adjustment
February 22, 1988
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
at 3:30 p.m.
Secretary Chairman
Date: