Loading...
boa_12 19 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES DECEMBER 19, 1988 2:00 p.m. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A quorum was present being six in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members present: George Wells, Chairman Ronald Pierce Jim Mitchell Rex Crane Cynthia Alderman Thomas McGowan Members absent: Diane Chachere 2 Open Positions City Attorney Present: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEMS DECEMBER 19, 1988 I. VARIANCES REQUESTED 1 Z-5124 4301 East Roosevelt Road 2. Z-5128 7509 Cantrell Road (Tanglewood Shopping Center) 3. Z-5129 4 Spur Cove 4. Z-5130 14 Pinto Point II. OTHER MATTERS 5. Z- 4336 -E Time Extension (Arkansas Children's Hospital) 6. Interpretative Issue (9014 Chicot Road) 7. Z-5101-A Rehearing Request (511 East 8th Street) 8. A change in date, time or both for the February meeting. December 19, 1988 Item No. 1 File No. Z-5124 Owner: Wilson Inn, Inc. /Rex Crane, Agent Address: 4301 East Roosevelt Road Description: Long legal Zoned: "C -3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the Height Regulations Provisions of Section 36-301-D to permit construction of a building with a height greater than what is allowed. Justification: The variance is needed to achieve the desired prototype of the Inn change. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /Inn STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The applicant, Wilson Inn, is before the Board of Adjustment requesting a height variance to accommodate for the prototype for the Wilson Inn change. The particular prototype consists of a five -story building. In order to accomplish the desired design, a variance of 18 feet is needed for a height of 53 feet. The property in question is zoned "C-3" General Commercial which has a height regulation requirement of 35 feet. Site selection for the proposed Wilson Inn is located in the eastern part of the City. Located in the immediate vicinity of the site is the Little Rock Regional Airport along with commercial sites located to the east and west. South of the site is vacant property and Interstate 440. East Roosevelt Road is a minor arterial on which this site fronts. December 19, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) Staff found no problems with the applicant's requested variance. No major impact will occur to the adjacent property owners. The location is suitable for the use of an inn. Even though Staff found no problems with the applicant's requested variance, the Little Rock Airport has a height clearance regulation that the applicant must also meet. As of this writing, no written comments have been received from the Airport. If problems exist when the review by the Airport is complete, the applicant is advised that no action can be taken by the Board of Adjustment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the height variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (December 19, 1988) Rex Crane represented the applicant, Wilson Inn, Inc. There were no objectors present. Staff recommended approval of the height variance subject to the recommendations of the Little Rock Municipal Airport Commission which are: 1. The applicant's conformancy with Federal aviation regulation, Part 77, Subchapter B. 2. The applicant's providing the Little Rock Municipal Airport Commission with a "hold harmless and non-suit" clause or agreement with regard to noise. Rex Crane stated that the total 53 feet actually was a requirement by the City in order for a stairwell penthouse to be built. A motion was then made to approve the height variance conditioned upon the request by the Little Rock Municipal Airport Commission. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention (Crane) and 2 open positions. December 19, 1988 Item No. 2 File No. Z-5128 Owner: Tanglewood Enterprises /Robert Brown, Agent Address: 7509 Cantrell Road ( Tanglewood Shopping Center) Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Reguested: From the Area Regulations Provisions of Section 36 -301. E -1 to permit construction with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The proposed improvements will enhance the appearance of the building and side with no negative side effects. Present Use of Property: Commercial /Bank Branch Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /Bank Branch 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 a reduced front yard setback. The encroachment into the front yard is needed for the construction of a canopy around an existing structure which houses a bank branch. Presently, the existing frame structure has an extended roof overhand to shelter drive-through customers as well as walk-up customers from the weather. As proposed by the applicant, the entire structure will be remodeled with more intense remodeling to the exterior. Zoned "C-3 General Commercial, the ordinance requirement is for a front yard setback to be 25 feet. Since the site fronts two streets, Cantrell Road and Georgia, two 25 foot setbacks are required. The setback to the northwest December 19, 1988 Item No. 2 (Continued) corner will be met but not to the east corner which fronts Georgia Street. At this point, the applicant will be providing a setback of 20 feet, a difference in the requirement of five feet and 18 feet, a difference in the requirement of seven feet. Located at the northeast corner of the Tanglewood Shopping Center, the site is somewhat isolated from the other commercial uses of the center. Surrounding the site are all commercial uses with some residential in close proximity. Cantrell Road is a four-lane State highway with one driveway located immediately to the site. Georgia Street is a residential built street. The elevation of the site is higher than the street level on the northeast side. There exists two drive accesses to the shopping center from Georgia Street. One Bank is presently housed in the existing structure. If the variance is approved and the remodeling occurs, Metropolitan National Bank will be the new tenant. Staff feels the applicant's proposal is justified due to the location of the site. If approved, Staff foresees no problem with traffic obstruction at the corner of Cantrell Road and Georgia Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (December 19, 1988) Mr. Robert Brown represented the applicant, Tanglewood Enterprises. There were no objectors present. Mr. Brown explained the project to the Board. He stated there were no problems with the Staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the front yard variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. December 19, 1988 Item No . 3 File No. Z-5129 Owner: ERC Properties /Tom Parks Address: #4 Spur Cove Description: Lot 260, Point West II Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the Area Regulations Provisions of Section 36-255. D -3 to permit construction with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The reduced rear yard setback is needed in order to accommodate the house design. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Residential /Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis A request for a reduced rear yard setback is what the applicant is proposing before the Board of Adjustment. The property in question is zoned "R-2" Single Family with a required rear yard setback of 25 feet. As the sketch indicates, a 20 foot rear yard is being proposed which is a difference of 5 feet from the requirement. Presently, the lot is vacant and located in a cul-de- sac. Surrounding the lot are residential uses with vacant commercial property located to the rear, or north. Kanis Road to the north is a built-to-standard street with mostly commercial, office and residential uses fronting it. There is some mature vegetation on the site with the elevation of the lot being some feet higher than the street level. December 19, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) From Staff review, a variance was granted for Lot 259 in this same cul -de -sac in September of this year. Site review indicated one other vacant lot in this cul- de-sac. The applicant is advised that any further construction plans for this area or the other residential areas as indicated on the preliminary plat should meet the requirements for the setback in the zone. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the rear yard setback as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (December 19, 1988) Mr. Pat McGetrick represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. Mr. McGetrick stated that there were three prototypes for this particular subdivision and the design chosen was encroaching into the rear yard requirement. A motion was then made to approve the rear yard variance as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. December 19, 1988 Item No. 4 File No. Z-5130 Owner: ERC Properties /Tom Parks Address: #14 Pinto Point Description: Lot 240, Point West II Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-3" Single Family Variance Requested: From the Area Regulations Provisions of Section 36-255. D-2 to permit construction with a reduced side yard setback. Justification: The contractor built the house too close to the property line and the lot line cannot be replatted. 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 Located on Lot 240 of Point West II Addition is an already constructed frame house that encroaches within the west side yard setback requirement for an "R-3” zoned lot. Under the "R-3" zone as required by the Zoning Ordinance, side yards should be 10% of the width of the lot. Lot 240 is 44.92 feet in width. Therefore, the side yards should five feet. The house as constructed has a west side yard setback of 2 feet, a difference of 3 feet. On the east side of this lot is a vacant lot. In the general area, there is a considerable amount of construction going on . Kanis Road is to the north of this lot with commercial, residential and office uses fronting the street. December 19, 1988 Item No . 4 (Con t i n u e d ) In accordance with the mandate set by the Board of Adjustment regarding Section 36-4, Violations and Penalties of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff will pose no opinion regarding this case until further review by the City Attorney's office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff does not offer recommendation at this time pending a legal determination or opinion from the City Attorney's office. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (December 19, 1988) Mr. Pat McGetrick represented the applicant, ERC Properties. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that no recommendation was being offered because of the mandate by the Board regarding strong action against cases where the construction has already occurred. The City Attorney stated that no opinion would be coming from the City Attorney's office. From the review of the Bylaws, the Board still could take action on the case. The Chairman stated that he felt the Board would feel more comfortable with the case if Staff had a recommendation to offer. Staff stated that a recommendation of approval can be given due to the financial problems that may materialize if action is prolonged for a period of time. Any further administrative action would include the applicant going before the Planning Commission and then on to the Board of Directors. After further discussion, it was determined that the house to the west allowed for a separation of ten feet from the house in question. Therefore, a substantial separation between the two houses does exist. A motion was then made to approve the side yard variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. December 19, 1988 Item No. 5 - Other Matters F i l e No. Z-4336-E Owner: Arkansas Children's Hospital Address: Marshall Street (Between 8th, 9th, 10th and Battery Streets) Description: Lot 11, Marshall and Wolfe's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "O-2" Office and Institutional Request: Time extension Justification: The addition to the Sturgis Building had to be put on hold due to other capital expenditures. Present Use of Property: Institutional /Children's Hospital Proposed Use of Property: Institutional /Children's Hospital STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis On February 22, 1988, the Board of Adjustment approved two variances for the Arkansas Children's Hospital. One variance was for a front yard setback of five feet and the ordinance requirement was for 25 feet. The second variance was from the Landscape Provisions of the ordinance which requires that a 25 foot landscaping strip parallel to any abutting boundary streets shall be provided and maintained by the owner(s) and in which no parking of wheeled vehicles shall be allowed. Inasmuch as the applicant was requesting a reduced front yard setback, the landscaping requirement could not be met. December 19, 1988 Item No. 5 - Other Matters (Continued) The applicant is back before the Board of Adjustment at this time requesting a time extension for the two approved variances. In the letter to the Board of Adjustment, the agent for the applicant states that due to a major construction project that was underway at the time of this approval and the Hospital Board's decision to install a magnetic resonance imagery system, the addition to the Sturgis Building was put on hold due to the capital expenditures required for those projects. It is now the Hospital Board's intention to reactivate the addition project to the Sturgis Building and may choose to begin construction soon after the new year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the extension for a period of two years as stated in the amendment to the Bylaws. Any additional time request will have to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (December 19, 1988) Mr. Ed Peck represented the applicant, Arkansas Children's Hospital. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the extension request subject to Staff's recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. December 19, 1988 Item No. 6 - Other Matters Owner: Ed Tucker Address: 9014 Chicot Road Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Request: A determination as to whether a distribution use is allowed in a "C-3" zone. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant is before the Board of Adjustment due to a pending commercial /distribution building to be located at 9014 Chicot Road. The subject property will be used for the retail sale of bakery goods and distribution. The bakery goods will be delivered to the store twice a week. Five small trucks will spend about 15 minutes around 5:00 a.m. to load the goods for distribution in the central Little Rock area. The store will be open for retail sales from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. six days a week. Staff feels that this particular use, commercial /distribution, is a more appropriate use under either one of the light industrial zones which allow for warehouse /distribution. The industrial zones are designated for those uses which are associated with large inventory of products that allow for rapid or easy turnover of the goods at any given period as well as the maintenance of inventory for a longer period. Since this particular use will involve the transporting of baked goods to the site (no baking will occur on the site) and then the transporting of those products to other trucks for delivery, it is Staff's opinion that the major operation of the business is distribution and not retail sales as the applicant indicates in his letter to the Board of Adjustment. The issue for the Board of Adjustment is to determine whether a "C-3" zoned piece of property can also be used for distribution purposes when distribution is not an allowable use under "C-3" General Commercial. December 19, 1988 Item No. 6 - Other Matters (Continued) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (December 19, 1988) The applicant, Mr. Ed Tucker, was in attendance. There were no objectors present. Staff gave an overview of the issues concerning the requests by the applicant. The issue before the Board of Adjustment was a determination as to whether a distribution use could be allowed within the "C-3" General Commercial zone. Mr. Tucker stated that the determination was needed to accommodate Krispy Kreme Donuts. If approved, the use would not be offensive to the surrounding properties. He said that there are other more offensive uses allowed in "C-3" such as a lumber store and a florist shop, both of which increase the traffic flow in the area and would not be something he would want in the area where his office is located, which is this particular area. He stated that retail would be the principle use for Krispy Kreme. Mr. Steve Fox , an employee of Krispy Kreme, spoke to say the retail use would be approximately 50% of the business. There would be a five to eight man crew to load and unload the trucks when products are delivered. The present location of the business is in an industrial park, but with this location, the same amount of square footage with less rent and overhead would be experienced. The applicant was then asked if the delivery of the products would be with the large 18 -wheel trucks. The applicant stated that it would. The trucks would bring the products to the location around 5:00 a.m. and be on the premises approximately 15-20 minutes. Resale of the products would be to other stores all over the State . Each truck makes approximately 20-25 stops. The delivery trucks are the size of a Ford van. Staff then informed the Board that any determination made by them would set a precedent for further interpretative issues of this nature that may be requested. Mr.Fox stated that the retail outlet would employ approximately 12 employees and, if this location cannot be used, there is a possibility the business will have to be relocated to another city. It was then asked if the retail portion of the operation could be in this location and another found for the distribution operation. Mr.Fox stated that in order to do that, it would be more costiy. Experience has shown that by having both operations in one location, all parties are better served. December 19, 1988 Item No. 6 - Other Matters (Continued) A motion was then made to rule that the proposed use by the applicant to be located at 9014 Chicot Road is a distribution use and does not fall inside the allowable uses within a "C-3" General Commercial zone. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. December 19, 1988 Item No. 7 - Other Matters File No. Z-5101-A Owner: James and Carolyn Duke /Juanita Singleton Address: 511 East 8th Street Description: Part of Block 5, Johnson's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "HDR" High Density Residential Request: Rehearing request by Kinnard Kohler on an approved conditional use permit for the operation of a catering business. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (October 17, 1988) The Conditional Use Permit was approved subject to: 1. The operating hours being from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 2. Any expansion of the business regarding floor area will have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. 3. No signs can be posted on the property. 4. All parking for activities pertaining to the catering business must be located to the rear of the site and not on the street. STAFF ANALYSIS: On November 17, 1988, a letter of complaint was delivered to the Office of Comprehensive Planning objecting to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of operating a catering business at 511 E. 8th Street. The complainant, Mr. Kinnard Kohler, stated in the letter that the property which he, along with two others, owns lies within the required 200 feet for the notice requirement on cases appearing before the Little Rock Board of Adjustment. Staff reviewed the legal descriptions supplied by Mr. Kohler and the list of property owners submitted by the applicant to the Staff person in charge of Board of Adjustment. The Staff person found that Mr. Kohler's property was, in fact, within the 200 foot requirement and should have received notice. A further check of the list submitted by the December 19, 1988 Item No. 7 - Other Matters (Continued) applicant did not show Mr. Kohler's name or the names of Mr. Johns Cooper or Mrs. Jan Greenland, the two other owners of property located at 500 E. 8th Street. At the November 21, 1988 meeting of the Board of Adjustment, Staff informed the Board of the complaint letter and recommended a rehearing be granted. A motion to that effect was made and acted upon by the Board. Staff further stated that the error made was due to the Staff. The applicant did not meet the requirement for notice as stated in the Bylaws. No certified abstract list was obtained, the research of property owners was done by the applicant along with an employee of the County Clerk's office. At the time the notice list of property owners was submitted, Staff informed the applicant of two major facts: (a) the certified abstract list was required to ensure protection to the applicant in case a property owner within the required 200 feet for notice was omitted but later objected to the action of the Board; and (b) when the notice is not done according to the Bylaws and a complaint is lodged, which has validity, the action granted by the Board is then placed in a hold status until the Board can resolve the issue by a majority vote. Staff has reviewed the issues listed in the complainants, letter which are: A. Parking, or rather the lack of it. The approval by the Board restricts any on- street parking in regards to the catering business. Also, the owner and employee are to park in the rear of the lot where two spaces are provided. B. Precedence for future decisions regarding this area of the MacArthur Park Historic District. Staff feels no precedence has been established since each case before the Board is reviewed and acted upon according to the merits of the request. Any case before the Board associated with any other Board or Commission which oversees that particular area is sent to that Staff person in charge. In regard to this particular area, the Historic District Commission only reviews cases for esthetic purposes and not for use. December 19, 1988 Item No. 7 - Other Matters (Continued) C. Waste disposal created by a food service operation. Staff feels that the food waste generated by the operation of the catering service should not be any more than that of a family with children. Since this is a new business, the volume of operation should be small. At such time as the volume increases and expansion is needed, the Board's approval stipulates a return in order to review the use. Again, Staff would like to offer to all parties involved in this case an apology for the error with the notice requirements. However, Staff feels the approved Conditional Use Permit as conditioned by the Board of Adjustment should be allowed to stand. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: As of the review conducted by Staff regarding this rehearing request, Staff is still recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions as outlined in the Board of Adjustment approval on October 17, 1988. The conditions are: 1. The operating house being from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. 2. Any expansion of the business regarding floor area will have to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. 3. No signs can be posted on the property. 4. No on-street parking for the business can occur. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (December 19, 1988) The applicant, Mrs. Juanita Singleton, was in attendance. There were two objectors present, Mr. Kinnard Kohler and Mr. Johns Cooper. Mr. James Duke also was in attendance to speak on behalf of Mrs. Singleton. Staff informed the Board that this was a rehearing request for an already approved Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a catering business to be located at 511 E. 8th Street. December 19, 1988 Item No. 7 - Other Matters (Continued) Mrs. Singleton informed the Board that she had made several attempts to resolve the issues of concern by the objectors but was unable to do so. Mr. Kinnard Kohler spoke on behalf of himself and his wife, Patricia. He stated that by allowing this use, it will present a change in the neighborhood. A lot of improvements have occurred in the neighborhood from E. 8th Street to Rock and Sherman Streets. An improvement district has been proposed and he and his wife have lived in the area for approximately six years. Their main objections are parking and trash. Some two hour parking signs are posted but there exists 50% off street parking, mostly by transient parking from people who work in the downtown area. Trash pickup is done on Mondays and Wednesdays, but when activities are held at the Decorative Arts Museum on a Thursday, per se, their trash remains until the next pickup date. Mr. Kohler stated the area is just not suited for a business and he does not care to have one there. The neighbors are putting forth an effort to build up the area and to allow this conditional use would be going against all their efforts. Mr. Johns Cooper spoke to say that he agreed with all the points Mr. Kohler had stated, and had a letter to submit from Mrs. Jan Greenland opposing the conditional use. Mrs. Singleton responded to the concerns of Mr. Kohler. She stated that during the first public hearing, the Board had restricted any on- street parking by the business. There exists a concrete slab which will allow for two parking spaces but enough ground area exists for two additional spaces. If necessary, she will be willing to provide for additional trash pickup if the need exists. The reason behind wanting to operate the business at this location is in order for her to manager her brother's property. She would not be living in the building but since a lot of improvements have occurred to the property in the area, including her brother's, by allowing the Conditional Use Permit she would be able to keep a better eye on the property. Further discussion occurred after which a motion was made to deny the conditional use permit. The motion failed for a lack of 5 votes. A second motion was then made to approve the conditional use permit. The second motion also failed due to a lack of 5 affirmative votes. The vote on both motions was 2 ayes, 4 noes, 1 absent and 2 open positions. Due to the lack of 5 votes on either motion, this item was automatically deferred to the January 17, 1989 meeting. December 19, 1988 Item No. 8 - Other Matters Discussion of a change in date, time or both for the February 1989 meeting due to a conflict in scheduling with the Planning Commission meeting on the 21st. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (December 19, 1988) The Board voted unanimously to change the meeting date from February 21, 1989 to February 27, 1989. December 19, 1988 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING There being no further business before the Little Rock Board of Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. DATE: Chairman Secretary