Loading...
boa_05 16 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES MAY 16, 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 McDaniel - Chairman Eduard Scharff Cynthia Alderman Earline Douglas Thomas McGowan Jim Mitchell Rex Crane City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles IV. Members Absent: Ronald Pierce One Open Position May 16, 1988 Item No. A - Z-5007 Owner: Delbert Dawson Address: 3221 Holt Street Description: Lot 12, Block 213, John Barrow Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-3" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area regulations provisions of Section 7-101.3-D.1 to permit construction of a house with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: We feel that West 33rd Street will never be open and improved as all the lots face Holt Street on the west and Elam on the east. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Residential STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the construction of a new house with a reduced front yard setback. The lot is located on a corner and while the applicant will meet the requirement of the ordinance on the street frontage on Holt Street, the front on West 33rd Street will not be met. The frontage will be 17 feet, and the requirement for both frontages are 25 feet. West 33rd is not an open street in this block. Although the street is closed physically, it is not officially on the City books; therefore, the variance May 16, 1988 Item No. A - Continued is needed. There is presently a lot of construction occurring in the area. The lot in question is cleared to some degree with some trees sparsely left on the site. Due to the fact this is a corner lot, staff feels the applicant has a hardship because of the requirement of providing two front yard setbacks. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval to the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Neither the applicant nor a representative was in attendance when the item was addressed. A motion for a deferral was then stated. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (5-16-88) The applicant was present at the meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. When asked by the Chairman if there were any questions or comments from the applicant, he stated, no. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. May 16, 1988 Item No. B - Z-5011 Owner: J and E Interests, Inc. /White-Daters Associates Address: 500 Napa Valley Drive Description: Lot 1, Calais Subdivision to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "MF-12," "MF-18," and "OS" Multifamily and Open Space Variance From the subdivision regulations Requested: provisions of Section 37.10-C to change a 25-foot building line. Justification: The variance is needed to clear the pool as constructed. Present Use of Property: Residential /Apartments Proposed Use of Property: Residential /Apartments STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board of Adjustment is for a variance to correct the fact of an already constructed pool encroaching into an existing 25-foot exterior side yard. The pool encroaches some 18 feet. The site in question is located in the western portion of the City where in the last few years a lot of major development has occurred. The site is that of Calais Apartments complex. The initial preliminary approval by the Planning Commission was in June 1984, and a final plat for Lot 1 was signed in February 1986. Compatibility of the site to the development trends of the area is agreeable. When the initial approval by the Commission was granted, the aqent at that time, May 16, 1988 Item No. B - Continued Joe White, prepared the option of connecting the entrance street through the open space zoned to Mara Lynn if the owner of that parcel would agree to it, or improve the street adjacent to the property. Staff found no indication that this agreement has been accomplished; therefore, the applicant needs to address this issue before any building line waiver can be approved. If the Board so sees fit to approve the request of the applicant, there are two additional steps associated with any building line waiver. These two steps include: (a) the filing in the Planning Department and County Courthouse of a one lot replat as well as, (b) the filing of an amended Bill of Assurance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval subject to the applicant closing the right-of-way if he has no record to indicate that it has been done. Also, the applicant would need to file a replat showing the new building line along with an amended Bill of Assurance. The applicant has requested in writing a 30-day deferral because of the notice requirement not being met. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: A written request was received asking for a 30 -day deferral because the notice requirement had not been met. A motion for a 30-day deferral was stated and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. This item will appear again on the May 16, 1988, agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (5-16-88) Staff stated in the recommendation that the applicant will need to meet with staff in order to work out some agreement regarding the abandonment of the right-of-way. Mr. Joe White of White-Daters represented the applicant, J and E Interests. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. White stated that he had no objections to meeting with staff and working out the right-of-way abandonment nor the filing of a replat and amended Bill of Assurance. A motion was then made to approve the building line waiver conditioned upon staff's recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. May 16, 1988 Item No. 1 - Z-5014 Owner: Middleton Builders /Dewayne A. Dossett Address: 820 Parkway Place Drive Description: Lot 13, Block 3, Cedar Ridge Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area regulations provisions of Section 7-101.2-D.2 to permit an addition with a reduced side yard. Justification: During the construction of the residence, the wrong corner pin was used to determine the north property line. The correct marker was covered with dirt, and when this was discovered, the structure was near completion. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis: The request before the Board is to allow an existing residence to remain with a reduced side yard. The structure is completed, and the setback varies from a minimum of 2.5 feet to a maximum 6.2 feet or an average of 4.3 feet. In the "R-2" District, the side yard requirement is 10 percent of the average width of the lot which would be approximately 6.9 feet with this particular property. At this time, the lot directly to the north is vacant and will be most directly effected by the side yard encroachment. Because of the size of the lots in the subdivision, it appears that a house constructed on the property to the north should be able to have an adequate setback and, thus, provide good separation between the two structures. Also, there are a number of trees along the south property line of the May 16, 1988 Item No. 1 - Continued lot to the north which should help screen the substandard setback. Using an incorrect corner pin does not create a true hardship, but staff feels that it is justification for granting the requested variance. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the side yard variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Ms. Anita Middleton and Mr. Dewayne Dossett were present at the meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. Mrs. Middleton had no questions or comments to address regarding staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the side yard variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 Byes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. May 16, 1988 Item No. 2 - Z-5020 Owner: J.M. Products Address: 2520 and 2522 State Street Description: Lots 7 and 8, Block 17 Kimball's South Park Addition Zoned: "R-4" Two Family Variance Requested: From the off - street parking provisions of Section 8-101-H.2 to permit "R-4" lots to be used for parking purposes. Justification: To provide additional parking for an office building. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: A parking lot for a nearby office building. STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been identified as of this writing. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to permit two lots to be utilized as a parking area for an office building located at Roosevelt Road and State Street. The Zoning Ordinance states: Any detached parking facilities or satellite parking shall be located on a lot which is zoned to allow the principal use to which will serve, or they must be approved by the Board of Adjustment. The site is vacant with the exception of a small accessory building located in the southwest corner, and there are a number of trees on the property. The proposed site plan indicates that only two trees will have to removed to accommodate the parking lot. The May 16, 1988 Item No. 2 - Continued office building that will utilize the parking spaces is located on the east side of State Street and approximately 150 feet to the northeast at the corner of State and Roosevelt Road. Because of the reasonable walking distance, the lot will be used by the employees of the building's major occupant and owner, J.M. Products and be for daytime use only. There are existing spaces around the building, and they will be used by customers and other tenants. An important consideration when reviewing a request like this is how the use will affect the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the parking area will have a minimal impact on the surrounding properties because of the lot's design and the existing land use pattern. Access to the new spaces will be from State Street only which should help reduce the amount of nonresidential traffic on the other streets. On both sides of State Street between Roosevelt and West 26th Street, there is only one residential structure that does not appear to be occupied. Directly across State Street, there is a parking lot that serves an elderly housing project and at the southwest corner of Roosevelt and State, there is a post office facility. Residential structures located south of West 26th Street are oriented toward State Street and only have an indirect relationship to the property under consideration. To help reduce any potential impacts and ensure the lot's compatibility with the neighborhood, the parking area needs some screening and landscaping along the north, west, and south sides. Using the land for an office parking lot appears to be a reasonable option, and staff supports the request with some design modifications and conditions. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the parking variance subject to the following conditions: 1. Two parking spaces, numbered 26 and 27, be deleted from the proposed layout. 2. A six -foot opaque fence be constructed along the north and west property lines. 3. No on -site lighting or nighttime use. The driveway will need to be chained at night to ensure this. May 16, 1988 Item No. 2 - Continued 4. Landscaping per ordinance standards and a 2-1/2 foot hedge along West 26th Street in addition to the ordinance requirements. 5. One sign equal to four square feet or the ordinance requirement, whichever is less. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was represented by Mrs. E. Joshua, the executive secretary for J.M. Products. Mrs. Joshua stated that she was instructed to state that the applicant had no problems meeting any of the conditions as outlined by the staff in the recommendation. A Board member then asked for clarification for Condition No. 3. Staff stated the condition is intended to prevent any obstrusive lighting or loitering on the site. Another Board member questioned whether some lighting would be needed for early evening during the winter months. Staff stated that probably so, but it it wasn't the intent to prevent or eliminate all lighting. It was then asked if the chaining of the driveway was necessary due to the fact the senior citizens apartment complex across the street needing to use the parking lot on occasion. Staff stated that it was unaware of why the senior citizens apartment complex across the street would need to use the parking lot and felt that the chaining of the driveway was necessary again to prevent any loitering during the evening hours. A motion was then made to approve the variance subject to the list of conditions and with an amendment to No. 3. Condition No. 3 states that on -site lighting be limited to direct purposes and unobstrusive to the surrounding property owners. It should be placed on the site where the lighting only illuminates the parking lot. Nighttime use should be limited to occasional; no consistent or continued nighttime involvement. The driveway will need to be chained at night to ensure no loitering when not in use. Mrs. Joshua stated that there were no problems with the condition as amended and the applicant would be willing to allow the parking lot to be used by other concerns. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. May 16, 1988 Item No. 3 - Z-5021 Owner: Ritchie Feuers Address: 14,301 Longtree Drive Description: Lot 117, Longlea Manor Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the subdivision regulations to permit construction to cross a platted building line. Justification: Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No issues have been identified as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The request involves an existing porch that crosses a 25-foot platted building line, and for the structure to remain, the Board of Adjustment must approve a building line waiver. The uncovered porch is approximately 5' x 6' and functions as the main entrance for the completed residence. Having to remove the porch would create some unique design problems because the residence is constructed at the building line and does place a hardship on the owner. The size of the porch only produces a minor encroachment and does not impact the visual appearance of the lot or the block face. Should the Board approve the waiver, then two additional steps must be completed to finalize the process. The owner will have to file a one lot replat with the Planning Department showing the new building line and provide an amended Bill of Assurance. May 16, 1988 Item No. 3 - Z-5021 3. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the necessary building line waiver be granted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: This item did not come before the Board due to administrative relief given to the applicant by the City Manager's Office of the City of Little Rock. May 16, 1988 Item No. 4 - Z-5022 Owner: B and B Oil Company Address: 2601 West 65th Street Description: Lot 1, Richard's Commercial Addition Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance Requested: (1) From the subdivision regulations of Section 37-10-C to permit construction to cross a platted building line. (2) From the area regulations of Section 7-104.2-E.1 to permit a reduced front yard setback. Justification: (1) Driveway cuts for entering and exiting for both trucks and autos were established with the City and State approximately 30 years ago. Changing the lot design would create a hazard for vehicles entering /exiting. Many customers are long-established and would be confused if change is required. (2) New canopies have increased height with modern lighting which projects more light on entrance /exit and offers vehicles easier and safer access during dark hours. This location is open late and early 7 days a week. (3) The older structure was outdated and a possible hazard due to age. This was a prime consideration to remove and replace. (4) Movement of trucks onto property would be impaired or impossible if change of truck fuel lanes is required. This would be due to size of trucks and one highway frontage used to bring trucks onto property. May 16, 1988 Item No. 4 - Continued Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Nome reported. B. Staff Analysis The site in question is located at West 65th Street and the I-30 Frontage Road, and the request is to allow two canopies to be erected that vary from the ordinance standards. (The canopies are in place but have not been completed.) To accomplish this, a front yard setback variance and a building line waiver are being asked for. In the "I-2" District, the front yard setback is 50 feet. There are two existing canopies on the property that will be replaced by the new ones which are larger but will maintain the current setbacks from the front property line. The northern canopy is wider than the existing one so the area encroachment will increase by approximately 11 feet. The southern canopy will have the same width. Canopies are somewhat unique because the setback is measured from the property line to the edge of the structure which is usually the roof or an overhang. In most situations, there is additional area of setback from the end of the canopy to the structural supports, and the proposed canopies are no exception. Because the canopy structures are fairly high, a reduced setback has much less of an impact than if the encroachment was at ground level. Another factor that helps minimize the effects of the variance is the actual distance from the canopies to the street. With this site, there is a grassy area between the property line and the road's pavement, so there is adequate separation between the structural involvement and the roadway so as to not create any problems for traffic circulation. Staff feels that the applicant has provided proper justification for the variance and supports the request. May 16, 1988 Item No. 4 - Continued Since the 40-foot building line has already been crossed with the existing canopy, staff recommends that the building line be eliminated through a replat of the lot. In this situation, nothing would be gained by platting a new building line that conforms to the new canopies. And finally, the applicant is reminded to review the Bill of Assurance for any additional requirements. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the setback variance and the building line waiver. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present at the meeting. There were no objectors in attendance. The applicant stated that there were no problems with staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to approve both variances subject to the filing of a replat and amended Bill of Assurance for the building line waiver. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. May 16, 1988 Item No. 5 - Other Matters Owner: Arthur Robinson Address: 4420 West 20th Street Description: Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 25 Sidney B. Johnson Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Request: To grant a rehearing for a previously denied variance request (Z-4992). STAFF REPORT: On March 21, 1988, the Board of Adjustment denied a variance application made by Arthur Robinson, the owner, for a structure located at the northeast corner of West 20th and Washington Street. The request was to gain relief from front and side yard setback requirements for the "C-3" District. Mr. Robinson is now asking that the issue be reconsidered by the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment Bylaws provide the necessary steps for granting a rehearing in Article V. Section 1 - No rehearing of any decision by the Board of Adjustment shall be had except on motion by a member of the Board to reconsider the vote made and acted on within ten days after its decision and carried by not less than five concurring votes. Section 2 - No motion for a rehearing shall be entertained except on written request for a rehearing and then not unless new evidence is submitted which could not reasonably have been presented at the meeting at which the hearing was originally had. Section 3 - If a rehearing is granted, the case shall be put on the calendar for a rehearing and the notices issued in accordance with the notice provision of these rules. Section 4 - No additional application to the Board of Adjustment shall be allowed unless there shall have been a substantial change in the circumstances affecting such property since the prior decision on the same piece of property. May 16, 1988 Item No. 5 - Continued The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to decide whether the new evidence presented by Mr. Robinson justifies a second hearing. If the Board determines that there is new information available that was not presented at the previous meeting, then a rehearing needs to be scheduled. (See accompanying letter for additional information.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Neither the applicant nor a representative was in attendance at the meeting. The Board voted 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position to deny the rehearing request based on the three items categorized in the letter sent to staff as new evidence. MADDEN BYARLAY & JOHNSON Attorneys at Law Jean M. Madden Thomas W. Byarlay Karen K. Johnson Of Counsel Kenneth E. Galchus Lynn A. Davis April 19, 1988 Anna Brown c/o Office of Comprehensive Planning City Hall Annex - West 2nd Floor Markham & Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Applicant - Arthur Robinson Item # Z-4992 Date of Hearing: March 21, 1988 Dear Ms. Brown: This letter is a follow -up to previous conversations between you and my office staff. I represent Arthur Robinson in this matter. On March 21, 1988, a hearing was held before the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Robinson appeared without counsel. The staff had previously recommended approval of the variance. The Board denied the request. Please let this letter serve as Mr. Robinson's request for reconsideration. This request is based upon the need to present the following new evidence to the Board: 1. Areas designated as "front ", "back" and "side" of the building were incorrectly indicated on the information submitted to the Board. 2. Information should be presented to the Board concerning the feasibility of closing the street right-of-way north of the property, which would affect this application. 3. The applicant desires to amend his proposed use from an on-premises beer /wine establishment to a use as an auto repair shop. A Full Service Law Firm 515 South Rock Street l Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 / (501) 378 -7700 / ABAInet #16271 Please submit this request to the Board, as soon as possible, and advise me of the result. Sincerely, MADDEN BYARLAY & JOHNSON -ctJ Jean M. Madden JMM /ps cc: Arthur Robinson B O A R D OF A D J U S T M E N T ��� /�� VOTE RECORD DATE ITEM NUMBERS MEMBER Thomas MCGowan� George Wells /f,_ ��� John McDaniel 1/11 Earline Douglas Cynthia Alderman V �,d Z,-�. Eduard Scharff , JR Jim Mitchell Ronald Pierce Rex D. Crane fl P - AYE NAYS A ABSENT ABSTAIN May 16, 1988 Board of Adjustment There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date