Loading...
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: