Loading...
boa_06 20 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES JUNE 20, 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 Cynthia Alderman Jim Mitchell Rex Crane Ronald Pierce Thomas McGowan Eduard Scharff Members Absent: Earlene Douglas One open position City Attorney Present: Pat Benton June 20, 1988 Item No. A - 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: The applicant did not submit a letter as requested by staff. 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. June 2Q, 1988 Item No. A Z-5021 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the necessary building line be granted. Board of Adjustment Action - 5/16/88 Due to the fact several steps of the application process not being completed, this item was deferred until the June 20, 1988 meeting. Note: This item will not be coming before the Board of Adjustment because of administrative relief given to the applicant by the City Manager's Office of the City of Little Rock. June 20, 1988 Item No. A -Z-5021 Board of Adjustment Action No action was needed on this item by the board. Administrative relief was given to the Applicant by the City Manager's Office. The action consisted of the applicant not coming before the board but the two additional steps for a building line waiver will have to be met. These steps are the filing of a replat and amended Bill of Assurance all in the Office of Comprehensive Planning and at the County Court House. June 20, 1988 Item No. 1 - Z-5009-A Owner: The Clary Company Address: Market Street Plaza Shopping Center Market at Merrill Streets Description: Lots 13, 14, 15, and 16, Charles Valley Subdivision to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the off - street parking provisions of Section 8-101-4.G to permit expansion with reduced parking. Justification: 1. The expansion is needed to accommodate additional space and storage area for a new tenant. 2. In the past, the area for enclosure has presented a security problem for the shopping center. Present Use of Property: Commercial /Shopping Center Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /Shopping Center STAFF REPORT: A. Enqineerinq Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analvsis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for reduced parking space for the expansion of space in a shopping center. Under the provisions of the ordinance, any increase in the gross floor area which would result in a requirement for additional parking facilities, such additional facilities shall be provided accordingly as a condition for obtaining a building permit. June 20, 1988 Item No. 1 - Continued The site in question is the Market Street Plaza Shopping Center. Loehmann's Department which initially occupied space is being replaced by Beall-Ladymon which is requesting of the applicant an additional 4,790 square feet that has not previously been leased, plus the enclosure of an existing 900 square foot area to be used as storage space. Since this will increase the total square footage of the center and on-site parking at present does not meet the current one space per 225 square foot ratio, the request is to allow the building addition of the 900 square feet area. This new addition would bring the total square footage of the shopping center to 139,180 which will be served by the existing 525 on-site parking spaces. Therefore, the parking variance is for four additional parking spaces which are needed in order to adhere to the ordinance requirement for the storage area. Beall-Ladymon Stores typically utilize a service mezzanine for storage. However, the height of the existing structure is not sufficient to permit a mezzanine. In the past, the area to be enclosed has provided access only to the previous unleased space. Since the public entrance to Beall-Ladymon will be located elsewhere, this access is no longer necessary and the space the applicant is requesting to be enclosed would become a dead-end pocket with no purpose. In the past, the applicant has stated that this area has provided some security problems for the shopping center by providing a secluded access to the nearby storefronts from the service alley. When the space is enclosed, this remote access to the service alley will be eliminated. Staff feels that the applicant's hardship is the fact that the additional 900 square feet of floor space will be used as storage purposes and not place any additional parking needs on the shopping center. But due to the fact that this applicant has on a previous occasion been granted a parking variance, staff would like to at this time inform the applicant that in the future it will no longer support any additional parking variances. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed with the understanding by the applicant that staff will not support any future parking variances. June 20, 1988 Item No. 1 -Z-5009-A Board of Adjustment Action A representative of the applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors present. A statement was added to the staff's recommendation which specifies that the new expansion area can only be used for storage purposes. The representative, on behalf of the applicant, stated that there were no problems with the added statement in the recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the requested parking variance with the added statement. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 open position. June 20, 1988 Item No. 2 - Z-5027-A Owner: City of Little Rock /Sam Strauss Address: 1100 East Roosevelt Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial (Rezoning has been filed for "C-3" General Commerial) Variance Requested: From the area regulations provisions of Section 7-104.2-D.1 to permit a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The expansion is needed at the request of a tenant. Present Use of Property: Commercial /Shopping Center Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /Shopping Center STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues The issues presented by this proposal are the danger and maintenance problems that possibly could occur when a concrete culvert of this size is obstructed and rendered nonaccessible. B. Staff Analysis The applicant is bringing before the Board of Adjustment a request for a reduced front yard setback in order to expand an existing building on the southeast corner. The expansion is needed to accommodate the request of the present tenant and will be approximately 25 square feet. In order to keep the expansion addition in line with the existing building, the front yard setback will have to be three feet which is that of the existing building. The ordinance states that for an "I -2" zoning the frontage should be 50 feet. The proposed expansion will be built over an existing concrete box culvert. A statement included in the applicant's letter to staff indicates that any damage incurred from the building will be the responsibility of the shopping center. June 20, 1988 Item No. 2 - Continued This request is located in one of the more established areas of the City. To the east of the site is the National Cemetery, to the south is the Little Rock Fire Department Substation and commercial uses, to the west commercial and industrial uses, to the north vacant property. Also associated with the variance request is a rezoning issue that will come before the Planning Commission in an attempt to rezone the property to "C-3" General Commercial which would bring the present use into conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. Due to the fact that there is substantial parking available, there is not an issue of additional on-site parking for the expansion. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the requested variance per engineering issues concerning the danger and possible maintenance problems associated with the addition being built over the large concrete culvert. June 20, 1988 Item No. 2 -Z-5027-A Board of Adiustment Action Mr. Elvin Shuffield represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. Mr. Shuffield stated that he disagreed with the staff's recommendation of denial. He felt that the applicant's request was reasonable and building over the concrete culvert presented no danger or problems for maintenance. He did submit to the Board a letter of agreement from the contractor stating how the construction would occur. The present rear or front yard is three feet and the new addition will keep to those same dimensions. Also, submitted to the Board was a legal agreement from the lessee of the space which stated that the sole responsibility for any damage will be with the lessee. From the design the contractor provided, the actual load over the culvert would be less than what is presently over the culvert with the cars on the parking lot. The expansion is at the request of the tenant and the addition will be only thirty -one feet in width. Staff stated that the reason why reference is made that the variance is a front yard was because the property fronts a street. Jerry Gardner, from the City Engineering staff spoke to explain the issues stated in the staff's recommendation. No details of the expansion had been seen by engineering but the assumption was made that if the addition was allowed to be built, it would be constructed with steel beams. The recommendation was based mostly on principal. It simply isn't a good practice to build across any type of concrete culvert, especially one of this size. It would render the culvert inaccessible for maintenance purposes, excavation from above would have to be done from this point on at the City's expense in a tunneling fashion. At present, the structural condition of the culvert is not known. It was then asked by the Board with the agreement by the applicant to allow entry at anytime, would the engineering position be the same. Mr. Gardner stated yes, because construction then makes the culvert a tunnel. There may be a time in the future, whether this applicant or another is leasing the space, that if there was a collapse, the repair would be at the City's expense. If the culvert remains as it presently exists, the repair work would not be that expensive. Another option would be to re-route the culvert but the expense would be large. Mr. Shuffield reiterated that the applicant was willing to take sole responsibility of any damage. It was then asked if the applicant would consider re- routing the culvert. As Item No. 2 - Z-5026-A Continued stated by Mr. Gardner, that would be very expensive versus just having it repaired when and if it was damaged. The City Attorney's Office stated that if the Board approves the variance, any agreement regarding liability must first be reviewed by the City Attorney's Office to ensure that the City isn't liability for any damages or injuries if the addition is built. It was then stated that the applicant would be willing to meet with the City Attorney's Office to draft in writing whatever type of document that was needed. Mr. Shuffield was asked if the applicant had considered building the addition to the front of the present structure rather than the side. He stated no, that option had not been explored because the applicant felt this was the best location. Also, there was concern regarding the loss of parking spaces. The City Attorney then stated that another legal point was the fact that in the future the lease agreement on the property may change and that person may not go along with what this applicant is proposing. Mr. Shuffield stated that the City owns the property and the applicant has a long term lease. A motion was then made to deny the variance per staff's recommendation concerning the engineering issues. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position, 1 abstention (Eduard Scharff, Jr.) June 20, 1988 Item No. 3 - Z-5024 Owner: Robert Thompson Address: #10 Bent Tree Drive Description: Lot 32, Longlea Estates to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the subdivision regulation provisions of Section 37-10.C to permit construction to cross a platted building line. Justification: The pool was constructed prior to the applicant's knowledge of a building line existing. Present Use of Property: Residential /Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Residential /Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis This application is before the Board of Adjustment as the result of an enforcement action by the Zoning Enforcement Office. The applicant has in place a swimming pool which was built across a 40-foot building line. The Subdivision Ordinance states that any construction that is built on or over a platted building line must first be approved by the Board of Adjustment. In conjunction with any approval for a building line waiver are two additional steps those being: (a) the filing of a one lot replat showing a new building and (b) the filing of an amended Bill of Assurance, all in the Office of Comprehensive Planning and at the County Courthouse. June 20, 1988 Item No. 3 - Continued The property in question is located in the western portion of the City. There is constructed a one-story brick and frame house. Along the rear or front (Hinson Road is to the rear of the structure) and sides is a constructed six-foot wooden fence. The neighborhood is all residential uses with this site being the third in the block from the corner. In the applicant's letter, four conditions are stated which the applicant feels are of major interest to the case. They are as follows: (1) All existing houses on the right side of Bent Tree Drive face Bent Tree Drive and all have backyards adjacent to Hinson Road. (2) Hinson Road is 80 feet wide. (3) There is a 15-foot section of land from curb to six-foot privacy fence which was there when the property was bought, and all houses on the block have fences. (4) The swimming pool was constructed 12 feet inside the fence, or 27 feet from Hinson Road and is not visible from the street or neighbors. The pool is an in-ground type with concrete surrounding it. Located on the northwest side is a storage building which is not of issue because it is allowed to be within three feet of the side property line. Staff is in support of the variance inasmuch as the applicant's request is reasonable, the structure is compatible with the area, and the fact the pool is already constructed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the applicant completing the process which includes the filing of a one lot replat and an amended Bill of Assurance all in the Planning Department and at the County Courthouse. June 20, 1988 Item No. 3 - Z-5024 Board of Adjustment Action Mr. Johnny Barnett represented the applicant and also was the contractor who built the pool. There were no objectors present at the meeting. Mr. Barnett was asked by a Board member if he was aware of the forty foot building line at the time of construction. Mr. Barnett stated that it was something that just slipped by them. He was then asked if he was in the pool business and whether he was contracted by the applicant to build the pool; to both questions the answer was yes. A member of the Board then informed Mr. Barnett that the practice of pool contractors going out and building pools before a needed variance is obtained has become a routine practice which the Board has at least one or more per month. It was then asked if there was an association for pool contractors to which the City could send notice stating the Board of Adjustment will no longer tolerate this practice in the future. The practice places the Board in the position of having to look at the owner, who is without fault. Mr. Barnett stated that he understood and the practice for his company is to ask the home owner if there are any variances or building lines of which they are aware. In this particular case, the company was in a hurry to get the pool in and a building permit just wasn't obtained. The owner was aware but it just isn't natural to have a building line in the area where the pool is located. To the question of whether he was permitted or licensed by the City, Mr. Barnett stated yes, he was licensed by the City of Sherwood but in order to do work within Little Rock a permit would have to be obtained. The Chairman then stated that the route in which the Board was trying to go was to find out if there is an association to which pool contractors belong. Mr. Barnett stated yes, there are two, the National Association of Pool and Spa Industry and the local Arkansas Association of Pool and Spa Contractors. One particular reason why the Board is interested is because at some point in time the Board is going to impose some tough penalties or start to simply deny these types of variances which then is going to place the burden on the property owner and not the contractor. In all honesty, this is not something the Board wishes to do, but the practice has to somehow be stopped. By sending a notice stating this fact, maybe the problem can be averted. Mr. Kenny Scott of the Zoning Enforcement Office stated that when this particular request came in for a building permit, one was granted for a location on the site behind the building line which would have been in compliance with the Zoning Code. For some reason, the contractor did not obtain Item No. 3 - Z-5024 Continued the permit for that location. When the inspector in that area did a field review, it was found that the pool was constructed. Mr. Scott was asked if a separate pool permit was needed or could a pool for construction just piggyback on a building permit. Mr. Scott stated that it is his understanding a pool not attached to a principal structure is considered an accessory structure and a separate building permit would be needed but for those attached to the principal structure when built, a permit is not needed as it is part of the original building permit. Mr. Barnett was then asked if he would share with Mr. Scott a list of the members of the state association to which he belongs in order that a notice can be mailed out. In essence, the notice is to state that tolerance in the past for already constructed pools in need of a variance possibly will not be tolerated in the future. Also to be included on the list are the names of pool contractors who have obtained privilege licenses from the City of Little Rock and possibly from North Little Rock. A motion was then made to approve the building line waiver conditioned upon the two additional steps being completed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 no, 1 absent, 1 open position. June 20, 1988 Item No. 4 - Z-5026 Owner: Tom Buford Address: 401 North Palm Description: Lot 19, Block 2, Elmhurst Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area regulations provisions of Section 7-101.2-D.2 to permit construction with a reduced side yard. Justification: At the time the house was built, adequate storage and closet space was not included. The variance is needed in order to relocate a bathroom and use the present one as storage and closet space. Present Use of Property: Residential /Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Residential /Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The applicant is coming before the Board of Adjustment at this time requesting a side yard variance in order to construct a new addition on the south side of the property. The purpose of the construction is to relocate the present bathroom facility in order to use the existing one as storage space. In the applicant's letter, it is stated that this proposal can be done by adding the new bathroom on the south side of the house, within the existing setback requirement; however, due to the cost of extending the roofline, it is the desire of the applicant to increase the size of the existing bathroom at the same time. June 20, 1988 Item No. 4 - Continued In order for the applicant's desired proposal to materialize, a variance with the side yard of 1.7 feet to the south property line will have to be granted. The ordinance states for residential zoned "R-2" property, a side yard should be 10 percent of the width of the lot not to exceed eight feet. Therefore, the applicant should be providing a side yard of five feet rather than the 1.7 as requested. Also associated with this request is the issue for the reconstruction of a proposed garage to the rear of the lot on the east side of the property. When on an "R-2" zoned lot where an alley abuts the property, the proposed construction has to maintain three foot separation on the side or rear property line. The proposed garage on the south side has a zero setback. The applicant states that in order to maintain an existing tree on the north side the garage has to be built on the property line to the south. The area in question is one of the more established ones with several of the houses being small in size and the width of the lots generally being around 50 feet. To the east attached to the brick and frame one -story house is a wooden deck. Also located in this area of the property is a three - (tied) built-up planter. All access to the proposed garage will be taken off the alley. Staff feels the requested proposal for the upper south side will place too much of a burden on the neighbor to the south to have construction, within 1.7 feet of the side yard. Although there exists a low retaining wall separating the two properties, the size of the addition is considerable. In regard to the proposal on the southeast side to the rear of the property, staff will support the construction inasmuch as the access will come off the alley. Staff would recommend to the applicant that the new addition on the south be reduced to meet the required five feet of side yard. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff at this time recommends denial of the requested side yard variance for the addition to the south side but will support the reduced side yard variance to the southeast corner where the proposed garage will be constructed and abuts the alley. June 20, 1988 Item No. 4 - Z-5026 Board of Adjustment Action The notice requirement for this item had not been met. A motion for a thirty day deferral was stated and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. This item will appear again on the agenda for the July 18, 1988 public hearing. June 20, 1988 Item No. 5 - Z-5223 Owner: B and B Oil Company Address: 5223 South University Avenue Description: The South 44 feet of Lot 4, Smith and Park Subdivision to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the subdivision regulations provisions of Section 37.10-C to permit construction to cross a platted building line. Justification: The request is to reconstruct new automobile canopies to replace the automobile canopies that were blown in the fall of 1987. Present Use of Property: Commercial /Service Station /Bait Shop Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /Service Station /Bait Shop 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 a request to reconstruct a canopy across a platted building line. As indicated by the applicant, the request is for the Kerr-McGee Service Station and Bait Shop located on South University Avenue. The proposed canopy will be approximately (40' x 74') to replace a (40' x 53') canopy that was destroyed in the fall of 1987. Included in the proposal are the following: (1) Driveway cuts for entering and exiting were established with the City and State approximately 25 years ago. Changing lot design would require cuts (note: slant for entering /exiting) to possibly be changed since they were designed for present layout. Change would possibly confuse June 20, 1988 Item No. 5 - Continued long established customers entering from University Avenue and create a hazard. (2) The increased height and modern lighting on the proposed canopy would project more light on the existing entrance /exit and offer vehicles safer access during dark hours. The canopy front edge would be approximately 65 to 70 feet from University Avenue. (3) The proposed canopy would cover the entrance to the store offering safer parking and movement of people and autos in front and on side of the building. (4) The proposed canopy would offer a modern impression to out -of- town /state motorists since University Avenue is a main arterial for Little Rock. Also of issue to this request but not an issue in which the Board of Adjustment has jurisdiction over is a request to use quitclaim property on the rear of the site for landscaping requirements but not obtain a rezoning. This particular parcel of property is a hill approximately five or six feet high and not suitable for another use without major changes. The landscaping of the parcel would be more natural and enhance the property. The building already in place is located on a corner lot. Frontage for the building is University Avenue with West 53rd running on the right side of the structure. On the left side of the building, there will be constructed a car wash. Surrounding the site are commercial uses. if approved, the applicant will be required to complete two additional steps which are the filing of a replat and amended Bill of Assurance. Staff feels that with the proposed improvements as submitted by the applicant the area will be better served. The applicant's request is becoming more and more common among service stations within the City and is something the staff can support. June 20, 1988 Item No. 5 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the building line waiver conditioned upon the filing of a replat and an amended Bill of Assurance both in the Planning Department and at the County Courthouse. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION A representative of the applicant was in attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the variance subject to staff's recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. June 20, 1988 Item No. 6 - Z-5029 Owner: Premier Homes Address: 12204, 12208 and 12212 Rainwood Road Description: Lots 28, 29, and 30, Rainwood Cove an Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the subdivision regulation provision of Section 37.10-C to permit construction to cross three platted building lines. Justification: The framer misread the numbers on the plot plans and the houses were 90% completed before the mistake was realized. Present Use of Property: Residential /Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Residential /Single Family 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 three already constructed buildings to remain. The issue of concern is the fact that all three structures were built across the platted 40' building line. The encroachments areapproximately 12 feet. All three structures are completed and ready for occupancy. Located in the western part of the City, the property is surrounded by residential uses. In the area to the north, there is construction going on for additional houses. June 20, 1988 Item No. 6 - Continued If this variance is approved, the applicant should be aware that two additional steps are necessary in order for the process to be completed. These two steps include the filing of a three lot replat showing the new-building lines and an amended Bill of Assurance for all three lots. All of which are to be filed in the Planning Department and at the County Courthouse. Staff feels that the hardship of the applicant is the fact of the building line being 40 feet instead of the common 25 feet building line for residential uses. Also, associated with the staff support is the fact that the structures are already completed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval subject to the applicant meeting the two additional steps which include the filing of a three lot replat and an amended Bill of Assurance for all three lots in the Planning Department and at the County Courthouse. June 20, 1988 Item 6 - Z-5029 Board of Adjustment Action Mr. Larry Williford represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. Mr. Williford stated that the mistake was made by the contractor misreading the plan. This was not found out until the plumber came to lay the sewer lines but at that time the houses were already completed. It was asked by the Board whether that statement applied to one or all three houses. Mr. Williford stated all three. The only possible excuse would be that building lines normally are twenty-five feet and this one is forty feet. Mr. Joe White, of White /Daters, stated that the only reason there was a platted forty foot building line on the three lots was because of shallow sewer line that was going to run diagonally across the front of the lots to serve the property to the west. Those are the only lots that have a forty foot setback and by crossing them there still will exist a twenty-eight foot setback compared to the twenty - five feet on the other lots, which will be three feet more. The sewer line is being relocated and the sewer company will gain a larger sewer line. It was asked if the sewer line located on the western -most part of the property is the one being relocated on the front, the response was yes. A motion was then made to approve the three building line waivers per staff's recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. June 20, 1988 Item No. 7 - Z-5031 Owner: J.E. Jordan Address: 1321 College Street Description: Lot 5, Block 4, Dodge Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R -4" Two Family District Variance Requested: From the area regulation provision of Section 7- 101.4 -D.1 to permit a reduced front yard setback. Justification: At some point, the porch was enclosed, and it is my intention to replace it to the original design. Present Use of Property: Residential /Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Residential /Single Family 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 for the reconstruction of an enclosed porch within the front yard setbacks. At some point in time, the applicant feels that the enclosed porch was a part of the original design of the house. Presently, the porch is halfway completed. The work was stopped by zoning enforcement during an inspection. The applicant states in his letter that the enclosure of the porch basically consists of about 800 concrete blocks extending from the front of the structure to the front steps. June 20, 1988 Item No. 7 - Continued As specified in the Zoning Ordinance in a "R-4" Two Family zone, a front yard setback should be 25 feet and the proposed enclosed porch will make the front setback 19 feet. Also, under construction is a garage on the east side of the property. But because there is an alley that abuts the proposed garage, there is not an issue associated with this proposal. The site in question actually on-site visit is two lots that are enclosed within a fence which gives the impression that the lot is a corner lot. The alley to the east is physically closed, but on the records it is officially open. This particular area of the City is one of the more established ones. Staff feels that the applicant's hardships is the fact of the lot being only 46 feet in width which means it is harder to meet the requirements as stated in the Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. June 20, 1988 Item No. 7 - Z-5031 Board of Adjustment Action Mr. J. E. Jordan was in attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors present. No problems were stated by the applicant regarding the staff's recommendation. 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. June 20, 1988 Item No. 8 - Z-5034 Owner: Michael Mosley Address: 3001 Loma Drive Description: Lot 1, Block 8, Richland Subdivision to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the subdivision regulation provision of Section 37.10/C.1 to permit construction to cross a platted building line. Justification: The carport was built to provide protection from the weather for the vehicles as well for entrance to and from the house. Present Use of Property: Residential /Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Residential /Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis This request has come about because of an enforcement action. The applicant has already constructed a two -car carport on the north side of the lot. In building the two-car carport, a 25-foot building line has been encroached over. As stated in the subdivision regulations, no building line can be encroached upon or built over without first obtaining approval from the Board of Adjustment. In order for the process to be completed, an amended Bill of Assurance will have to filed as well as a replat showing the new building line if this request is approved. June 20, 1988 Item No. 8 - Continued The area in question is located out past the Airport. Surrounding the property are residential uses with Badgett Elementary School to the east. The lot is situated on a corner with both Pecan Avenue and Lomar Drive being built to standard with no indication for future widening. Access to the carport is from Pecan Avenue. The garage storage building on the south side is used as a shop. On the east, there is also located a 30-foot easement drainage ditch. The two-car carport is unobtrusive and doesn't present a site problem from any direction. But the poles and roof extend within four feet of the front property line on Pecan Avenue. Staff is in support of the variance due to the fact that it is already constructed and is compatible with the surrounding residential uses in the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval conditioned on: (1) the two-car carport never being enclosed, (2) the applicant completing the process for a building line waiver by filing a replat and an amended Bill of Assurance in the Planning Department and at the County Courthouse. June 20, 1988 Item No. 8 - Z-5034 Board of Adiustment Action Mr. Mike Mosely, the applicant, was in attendance. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the building line waiver subject to the two additional steps being completed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. June 20, 1988 Item No. 9 - Z-5035 Owner: Brandy Wine Corporation /White-Daters Address: 501 Nix Road Description: Lot 1, Block 5, Gibralter Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area regulation provision of Section 7-101.2-D.2 to permit a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The lot is too narrow to practically construct a residence with the required setbacks. Present Use of Property: Residential /Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Residential /Single Family 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 reduced front yard setback. The ordinance requirements state that for a corner lot, the property owner is expected to provide for two front yard setbacks. The zoning of "R-2" Single Family specifies a 25-foot front yard. Therefore, the applicant is supposed to provide that amount of footage on the frontage to Nix Road as well as Archer Lane. The lot in question is 50 feet wide, by meeting the requirements of the ordinance, the applicant would not have been able to build the desired design of the type of house the owner wanted. Therefore, the owner has built a two-story house that is completed and ready for occupancy with a front yard setback on Archer Lane of seven feet and the frontage to Nix Road being 25 feet. Archer Lane is not a June 20, 1988 Item No. 9 - Continued a complete through street. In this particular area, the street dead-ends on the east side of the lot to Gamble Street where it then becomes open and built to residential standards. Gibraltar Heights Addition to the City is an older established subdivision with no active Bill of Assurance still in existence. Surrounding the property is residential uses with several houses under construction at this present time. The applicant does display a hardship because this particular lot is on a corner and only 50 feet in width. Staff feels the requirement of the ordinance for two 25-foot front yard setbacks places restraints on the owner as well as the fact that the house is already built and ready for occupancy. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the front yard variance as filed. June 20, 1988 Item No. 9 - Z-5035 Board of Adjustment Action Mr. Joe White of White /Daters represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. No problems were stated concerning staff's recommendation. A motion was stated to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 open position. June 20, 1988 Item No. 10 - Z-5036 Owner: Louis Schnickel /White - Daters Associates Address: 301 North Bowman Road Description: Lot 10, Markham Commercial Subdivision to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the subdivision regulation provisions of Section 37.10/C to permit construction to cross a platted building line. Justification: In order to provide a covered area to park and handle freshly cleaned clothing without damage from the elements. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /Cleaners STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment at this time for a building line waiver in order for the construction of a cover canopy to cross a platted 40-foot building line. The applicant states that the covered canopy is needed for the customers in order to protect them and the clothing they may be picking up or dropping off from the weather. Enough area under the covered canopy is needed to provide for six parking spaces, which when all completed will be approximately 12 feet from the frontage of Bowman Road. The lot in question is a corner lot with Markham Park Drive to the south and Bowman Road to the west. The proposed construction is for a cleaners with egress and ingress to be taken from three proposed drives, Bowman Road, June 20, 1988 Item No. 10 - Continued Markham Park Drive and from an access drive that is to be built to the north between this lot and the adjacent lot with accessibility available to the five acre tract to the east. A point of interest regarding this particular variance request is the concern surrounding the proposed driveway to be taken from the access drive to the north of the lot. On April 19, 1988, the Planning Commission conditionally approved a request by The Danny Thomas Company for the access drive that would serve the five-acre tract to the east. The recommendation of denial for the access drive was offered to the Planning Commission by both staff and the Engineering Department. Under the conditions for approval for the request, the applicant (The Danny Thomas Company) must: (1) at his cost provide for additional length to the southbound left turn lane equal in length to that existing, (2) there can be only one access onto Bowman Road to serve all of the three lots (5, 10, and 11), and (3) The Danny Thomas Company has to assure that the other two owners comply with Item No. 2. Due to the fact that this particular case was to come before the Board of Adjustment on June 20, 1988, the Planning Commission at the May 30, 1988, meeting added an amendment to the April 19, 1988, conditions of approval. The amendment states that if a building permit is issued that will allow for a curb cut to access either of the two lots that front on Bowman Road from Bowman Road then the conditions of approval for the access drive are void, and the access to the five-acre tract to the east would only be allowed from Markham Park Drive. As with any case that is brought before the Board of Adjustment where there is an issue of concern regarding a Planning Commission action, it has been staff's position that all information being given in order that one action will not impair or override the action of the another. It is the opinion of staff that the requested variance would impair the development of the lot for the following reasons: (1) The size of the structure and over building the lot especially for the type of commercial use proposed which is that of a cleaners. (2) The potential for a more intense commercial use occupying the building in the future if ever vacated by the present owner. (3) The applicant June 20, 1988 Item No. 10 - Continued indicates that the parking spaces to the north will be 9' x 18', but the ordinance states that the parking spaces should be 9' x 20'. (4) Possible on-site traffic flow problems if the access drive to the east is not built with egress and ingres being taken off Bowman Road and Markham Park Drive. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the building line waiver as filed for the above stated reasons. June 20, 1988 Item No. 10 - Z-5036 Board of Ad'ustment Action Mr. Joe White of White /Daters represented the applicant. There were no objectors in attendance, but Mr. Maury Mitchell of the Danny Thomas Company was in attendance to review the new proposed plan. Staff informed the Board that the recommendation of staff was still denial of the proposed plan which is in the agenda. It was staff's understanding the applicant wishes to present a new plan for the same location. Staff would recommend to the Board that a thirty day deferral be granted in order to allow for (a) proper legal notice to be given, and (b) the normal distribution of the plan to the proper departments and agencies for review. Mr. Joe White stated that rather than defending the proposal which is in the agenda after their review of the staff's denial, the applicant decided to modify the old plan which he is submitting today. In regard to staff's recommendation for a thirty day deferral, the applicant would ask that the proposal be approved conditioned upon the sign-off by those agencies and departments. A thirty-day deferral would be a definite hardship for the applicant. Since a representative of the Danny Thomas Company was present and had no objection, wasn't the legal notice requirement satisfied. The City Attorney present stated that if the representative had no objections and there were no other property owners within 200 feet in attendance, then in her opinion the legal requirement had been met. Mr. Maury Mitchell, the representative for Danny Thomas Company, stated that there were no objections to the new plan. He had an opportunity to review the plan and felt the action could take place. Mr. Joe White then stated that in essence what the applicant did in the new plan was to reduce the size of the building and add more landscaping. A motion was then made to approve the building line waiver subject to the sign -off by the utility companies, the engineering and fire departments, the filing of a replat and amended Bill of Assurance in the Planning Department and at the County Court House. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstaining (Scharff), 1 absent, 1 open position. June 20, 1988 There being no further business before the Board of Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Secretary Chairman