Loading...
boa_10 17 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES OCTOBER 17, 1988 2:00 p.m. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A quorum was present being eight in number. II Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members present: George Wells, Chairman Jim Mitchell Eduard Scharff Ronald Pierce Cynthis Alderman Diane Chachere Rex Crane Thomas McGowan Members Absent: One Open Position City Attorney present: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF ACTIVITIES OCTOBER 17, 1988 I . DEFFERED ITEMS A. Z-5018-A 8209 Geyer Springs Road II. VARIANCES REQUESTED 1. Z-2908-D 5908 West 19th Street 2. Z-5067-A 912 Garland Street 3. Z-5078 5701 Lindsey Road 4. Z-5080 8807 West 33rd Street 5 Z-5081 10312 Baseline Road 6. Z-5083 10 Barbara Drive 7. Z-5085 1623 West 24th Street 8. Z-5089 101 Poinsetta Drive 9. Z-5091 1200 South University 10. Z-5101 511 East 8th Street III. OTHER MATTERS 11. Clarification request to the Height and Areas Exceptions Provisions of the Little Rock Zoning Ordinance 12. A determination to the appropriate zoning district for outside auto storage 13. Adoption of a resolution changing the time limit provisions in the Bylaws October 17, 1988 Item No. A File No. Z-5018-A Owner: Marion D. Nash Address: 8209 Geyer Springs Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C -4" Open Display Variances Requested: From the Area Regulations provisions of Section 7-103.4 - D.1 & 2 to permit construction with reduced front and side yard setbacks. Justification: The new addition is needed for office space and storage areas. Present Use of Property: Commercial /service station Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /service station with office and storage area STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis The issues before the Board of Adjustment are for reduced front and side yard variances in order to construct a new addition for office and storage purposes. In the applicant's letter to the Board it is stated that at the present location, monies in excess of $10,000 are handled on weekends. Office area in the service station is presently being used to process the receipts. Geyer Springs, according to the applicant, is a high crime area; therefore by placing the building on the north property line, a more secure addition could be built with entrance to the front. Presently, the property is zoned "C-4" Open Display. The setbacks in the "C-4" zoning require the front yard October 17, 1988 Item No. A (Continued) to be 45 feet on both frontages to Geyer Springs Road and Dreher Lane. Constructed on site within the 45 foot setbacks are two awnings. The setback to the awning on Geyer Springs Road is 19 feet, a difference of 26 feet; on Dreher Lane the awning has a setback of 12 feet, a difference of 33 feet. Staff found no record to indicate that variances were obtained for these encroachments. Therefore, the front yard variances were added to clear up the present case file. On the north property line or side yard, the request is for the new addition to be constructed within 4.1 feet of the property line. A side yard in this zone is required to be 15 feet, a difference of 10.9 feet. Surrounding this property are all commercial uses. Geyer Springs Road is a four -lane street with a large traffic flow. Dreher Lane is a two -lane street with heavy traffic flow, more or less during the weekend. Presently on this site is an existing brick building with three bays connected for maintenance and repair work of automobiles. Both awnings serve as cover for motorists to the pumps. One is connected to the principal building providing cover to and from the building in inclement weather. Staff feels that to allow the applicant's request as proposed would definitely present a potential fire hazard problem. The building to the north is built within no more than approximately 3 feet of the property line. The new addition simply would not allow for enough separation, especially since the requirement states that side yards should be 15 feet. A more suitable location would be for the addition to the built to the rear of the building with access being taken from the existing building for the security purposes. In the event the Board agrees with the recommendation of Staff, the applicant is advised to resubmit a plan showing the construction of the addition to the rear of the existing building at which time Staff will review and bring back to the Board of Adjustment for a decision on a rear yard variance if one is found to be needed. October 17, 1988 Item No. A (Continued) C. Staff Recommendation Staff is recommending denial of the side yard variance due to the potential fire hazard if the building is allowed to be built so close to the north property line. However, Staff is recommending approval of the front yard variances. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 19, 1988) Mr. Bill Nash was in attendance and represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that there was a problem with the notice requirement. The abstract list that Mr. Nash submitted indicated ten property owners within the required 200 feet but Mr. Nash only submitted seven return registered cards. Along with the seven registered cards, Mr. Nash also submitted an affidavit stating he had complied with the requirement. After further discussion, the City Attorney present stated that the Board had in the past held a strong position about the applicant's meeting the requirements. Therefore, he felt the same should hold true for this case. A motion was then made to defer this item until the October 17, 1988 meeting. The applicant was told that during this time all effort should be given toward bring the Notice Requirement into compliance. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent, 2 open positions. BOARD OFADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Cash. There were no objectors present. Mr. Cash stated that his client really felt strongly about the need to have the addition built to the north side. The reason was because of security purposes since the applicant handles large sums of monies on the weekend and the area has a high degree of crime. Mr. Cash also said that there was a need for the addition to front onto Geyer Springs Road. A Board member then asked Mr. Cash if the addition could be placed on the south side. Mr. Cash stated, "No, because of pumps being located in that area." Mr. Cash then asked for clarification of the Staff's recommendation. Staff stated that the applicant had more than enough area on the east side of the lot, which is the rear of the principal structure, in which to construct the October 17, 1988 Item No. A (Continued ) addition. A Board member then asked why couldn't the applicant, since it's the desire to front on a street, locate the addition fronting on Dreher Lane which is a less busy street with commercial uses in the immediate area. Mr. Cash stated that he had discussed that possible alternative with his client but the client had refused the idea. A motion was then made to approve the front yard variance only. This motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position. No motion was given nor a vote taken on the side yard variance request. October 17, 1988 Item No. 1 File No. Z-2908-D Owner: Louis & June Nalley Address: 5908 West 19th Street Description: Lot 11, Block 24, Bateman's Subdivision of Cherry & Cox's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: From the Floodplain Restrictions of Paragraph (a) of Paragraph (4) of Section B of Article 5 of Ordinance No. 14,534 of the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Justification: The variance is needed in order to construct a building for the purpose of storage within the floodplain. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Storage STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering lssues The engineering issues are included WitMnthe Staff's analysis. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for a variance from the Floodplain Restrictions to allow for the construction of a building within the floodplain for the purpose of storage. City Ordinance does allow for the construction within the floodplain but because of the 100 year flood restrictions, floor elevations must meet certain requirements. October 17, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) Coleman Creek is located adjacent to the two lots in question on the west. There is a pending improvement project by the City for this creek. Presently, the two lots are vacant except for a small metal building located in the northeast corner of Lot 12. The site area is paved with wire fencing surrounding it. The neighborhood consists of residential and commercial uses. West 19th Street is a residential built street. University Avenue is a major arterial, located west of the site. The present location of the storage building places it within the floodway which cannot be allowed. If the floodplain variance is granted, the building will have to be relocated from where the sketch indicates it will be placed. By relocating the building further east on the site, it will place it in the floodplain and not the floodway as the sketch indicates. The new storage building will serve as storage, an accessory use to the principal use of which is the Hog Pen, a retail business. Staff feels the applicant's hardship is the fact of the pending City project to improve Coleman Creek. There also existed a structure similar to the one the applicant desires before the flood occurred during the seventies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval subject to: (a) the building's being located as far east on the site as possible, and (b) the floor elevation plan must be reviewed and signed off on by the City Engineering Office. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Kim Gaines represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. Mr. Gaines shows a plot plan to the Chairman and Staff and asked if that was what Wastewater Utility wanted. Staff informed him that she was not able to make that decision. The applicant should contact Wastewater Utility. Mr. Gaines then was asked if there were any problems with the conditions as stated in the Staff's recommendation. Mr. Gaines stated that no problems existed. October 17, 1988 Item No. 1 (Continued) A motion was then made to approve the floodplain variance per the conditions stated in Staff's recommendation. Also included in the motion is the request by Wastewater Utility to review the site plan because of the sewer easement located on the site. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 open position. October 17, 1988 Item No. 2 File No. A-5067-A Owner: International Computer Systems, Inc. Address: 912 Garland Street Description: Lot 11, W. B. Worthen Subdivision of Block 352, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas honed: Variances Requested: Justification: "0 -3” General Office From the Area Provisions of Section 7-102.3-D.1, 2 and 3 to permit construction of a building with reduced setbacks A. The "O-3" zoning setbacks create a hardship for any office development on this site. B. Office development constitutes the best use of this property and the setback variances requested are less than the setback variances enjoyed by the majority of the buildings on the block. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is for the construction of an office building with reduced setbacks. A similar proposal was before the Board last October 17, 1988 Item No. 2 month. One difference between the old and new proposal is the fact the applicant is exceeding the requirement of the side yard setback on the east side. In "O-3" General Office zoning, side yard setbacks are required to be ten (10) feet. On the west side, the request is for a five (5) foot setback, a difference of five (5) feet; a fifteen foot setback is being proposed to the east, an increase of five (5) feet. A front yard setback should be twenty-five (25) feet and the proposal is for a fifteen (15) foot setback, a difference of ten (10) feet. Rear yard setbacks should be fifteen (15) feet, the applicant is requesting a varying setback of four (4) feet to six (6) feet, a difference of eleven (11) feet to nine (9) feet. Construction plans consist of a two -story building being 30' x 60' with a total square footage of 3600 feet. Also associated with this request is the desire of the applicant to utilize the parking lot to the north of the site in order to meet the parking requirements. Parking requirements indicate that nine (9) spaces will be needed for the new two -story building, of which the applicant's parking lot to the north can adequately provide. Please note the applicant owns the lot in question as well as the two lots to the north. Surrounding this site is a mixture of uses which include commercial, office and residential. The lot is 50 feet in width and a gravel alley running the contour of east and west is located to the north of the site. Garland is a narrow residential street with off-street parking occurring during the daytime hours. Staff feels the applicant does have a hardship due to the fact the lot is only 50 feet in width and the request is compatible with the other office uses in the area. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Inasmuch as a possible change in the future ownership or type of uses for all three properties involved may occur, Staff is recommending approval of all three variances subject to: (a) any new privilege licenses on either side may not be issued without review of the parking by Staff, and (b) no partial sale or reuse of any or all three properties may occur without Staff's approval. October 17, 1988 Item No. 2 (Continued) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Darrell Odom represented the applicant. There were two objectors present: Mr. Peter Thomas representing the neighbor to the east, Mrs. Annie Holloway, and Pat Colberson, also representing Mrs. Annie Holloway. Mr. Odom spoke to the position of his client. He stated that his client had presented the best proposal possible and still meet his desire for an office building. There is a meeting of the setbacks on the east with a five foot increase. Mr. Peter Thomas stated that his client's position was still the same which was objection to the variances. Inasmuch as the applicant's variances may be approved, his client would rather keep the hedges that are presently on -site instead of the opaque screen the ordinance requires. His client would also like for the applicant to assure that the proper drainage will be provided to ensure that no rain run -off will affect her property to the east. Mr. Odom, responding for the applicant, stated that there were no problems in meeting the conditions of Mr. Thomas' client. He further agreed to replace any hedges which may be damaged from construction. Mrs. Pat Colberson stated that she was a good friend to Mrs. Holloway and was in attendance to let the Board know how strongly Mrs. Holloway objected to the building being constructed. If the building is constructed, it will block all light to the east side of Mrs. Holloway's house. Mr. Odom stated that he does understand Mrs. Holloway's position, but even without the variance, there still could be an office building constructed on the site. It was then asked of Mr. Odom whether their existed any problems with the conditions Staff outlined in their recommendation. Mr. Odom stated no problems existed. A motion was then made to approve the three variances per the conditions stated in the Staff's recommendation. This motion also is to include the consent by Mr. Odom to provide for proper drainage of rain run-off away from the property to the east as well leave in place or replace any of the rows of hedges located on the east side of the site. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position. October 17, 1988 Item No. 3 File No. Z-5078 Owner: Garrison, Inc. Address: 5701 Lindsey Road Description: Long legal Zoned: "I-2" Light industrial Variance Requested: From the Development Criteria Provisions of Section 7-104.2 - B.1 to permit a change in the screening requirements Justification: Due to the fact all the surrounding property will have an industrial use, there is no need for the opaque screening. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Industrial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The applicant is requesting of the Board of Adjustment to allow a different screening requirement than what is stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Presently, the property is cleared with some construction being done in the beginning stages. Surrounding the property is the Picron Ports Industrial Park. Lots adjacent to this site are zoned residential with the intent being to have each lot rezoned to "I-2” when a sale occurs. The only exception to this is a tract that is being mined as a granite quarry. The ordinance states that every use, or any part thereof, that is not conducted within a building completely enclosed on all sides shall be enclosed within a wall of fence [six (6) feet in height]. Such wall of fence shall completely screen all operations conducted within such wall of fence from observation. October 17, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) The applicant is proposing rather than the six (6) foot opaque type fence or wall, a six (6) foot chainlink security fence be used instead. Lindsey Road is a paved right-of-way of which the industrial uses in the area front. Staff would like to inform the applicant and make the Board aware of two pending issues regarding the Subdivision Committee Review of the Preliminary Plat titled Pratt-Cates- Remmel Road which was approved on July 12, 1988 by the Planning Commission. The applicant was asked to extend the boundaries of the plat so that the surrounding ownership was included and identified as lots, and to provide a 90 degree angle at the intersection with Lindsey Road. No records have been found to indicate the applicant has met these two conditions. The applicant is to be advised that any approval of the variance request does not in any way delete or remove those conditions. Inasmuch as the surrounding property will be of an industrial use, Staff feels the applicant's request is reasonable and therefore will not present a problem to the adjacent property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the change in the screening requirement. The applicant is also advised to comply with the conditions of the preliminary approval by the Planning Commission. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. George Toombs of the Cromwell firm was in attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors present. Mr. Toombs stated that there were no problems with the Staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the variance request subject to the applicant's meeting the preliminary approval by the Planning Commission. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. October 17, 1988 Item No. 4 File No. Z-5080 Owner: Van Melson Address: 8807 West 33rd Street Description: Lots 7, 8 and 9, Block 171, John Barrow Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R -3" Single Family Variance Requested: From the Parking Provisions of Section 8-101.4-H.2 to permit residential zoned property for parking Justification: The parking is needed to accommodate a small shopping strip "West Acre Square." Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: A parking lot 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 residential zoned property to be used for a parking lot. Three lots are involved in this request. The ordinance states that no lots can be used for parking, if that is not the intended purpose of the zoning, without approval by the Board of Adjustment. West Acre Shopping Center is located to the east of the three lots. Additional parking is needed to serve the center. Therefore, the three lots will provide that needed parking area. The present parking area to the center abuts the three lots. There is a driveway to the center off of West 33rd Street and John Barrow Road. Surrounding the three lots are residential, commercial and vacant lot. There is an alley located October 17, 1988 Item No. 4 (Continued) to the east of the lots. Physically the alley is closed but not on the record. Pending before the Planning Commission is a request to close the alley and have it serve as part of the parking lots. Located on site are some mature trees. West 33rd and Ludwig are both residential streets which have been improved through the Community Block Grant Program. John Barrow, a minor arterial to the east, is a four -lane road with commercial uses along the frontage. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval subject to the applicant meeting the following conditions: 1. A twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback should be provided and maintained on the frontage to Ludwig. 2. No access to the site can be taken from Ludwig. 3. A six (6) foot opaque fence should be provided along the 25 foot setback line and along the south property line. 4. Any access drive should be located from the furthermost point from Ludwig. 5. No lighting can be mounted any higher than the six (6) foot fence and should be directed away from the residential properties. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present at the meeting. There were no objectors present but Staff stated one call was received objecting to the request. Mr. Melson stated he had no problems with the conditions as outlined in Staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the variance request per the Staff's recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. October 17, 1988 Item No. 5 File No. Z-5081 Owner: Tony Bolin /Carl Martin Address: 10312 Baseline Road Description: Long legal Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the Powers Provisions of Section 3 -101-D to permit a mobile home to be used for security purposes. Justification: The mobile home is needed to provide some security against theft. Present Use of Property: Auto parts salvage Proposed Use of Property: Auto parts salvage 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 to allow a single wide mobile home to remain on the property for security purposes. This request is the result of an enforcement action. Presently on site are several automobiles from which parts are removed and sold to customers. As entrance is gained to the site, there exists an unimproved driveway with a mobile home for security purposes to the east. The mobile home is older, in need of repair, and sits on concrete blocks. It is the understanding of Staff that the mobile home has been in the same location for a period of about eight years. The property is zoned "R-2" with the use being of a nonconforming status. Surrounding the property are residential, commercial and some office uses. On site in the same vicinity of the mobile home is a metal storage building used for repair and dismantling of the automobiles. The entire site is enclosed within wire fencing. October 17, 1988 Item No. 5 (Continued) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance subject to the mobile home being used for security purposes only. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Tony Bolin was in attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors present. Mr. Bolin stated no problems existed with the recommendation of Staff. A motion was made to approve the variance subject to the mobile home being used for security purposes only. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. October 17, 1988 Item No. 6 File No. Z-5083 Owner: Beverly Burress /Eugene Laurence Address: 10 Barbara Drive Description: Lot 312, Broadmoor Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the Area Provisions of Section 7-101.2-D.1 to permit construction with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: The cover is needed for protection from the weather due to the fact both parties involved are handicapped. 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 An.a.lysis This request is before the Board of Adjustment as the result of an enforcement action. The applicant has in place two wooden poles on which a cover will be mounted that encroaches within the front yard setback requirements. Due to the fact the property is zoned "R-2" Single Family, the front yard setback is 25 feet. The proposed cover, if allowed, will have a setback of 14 feet, a difference from the requirement of 11 feet. All other setbacks will be met. The sides and rear of the yard are enclosed with a chainlink fence. Barbara Drive is a residential built to standard street with curb and gutter in place. Surrounding the property are all residential uses. On the north side of the one- story house is a concrete drive that leads to a carport. October 17, 1988 Item No. 6 (Continued.) Staff feels a hardship does exist due to the fact both applicants are handicapped and the request would not present any undue hardship to the adjacent property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the front yard variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Staff informed the Board that the notice requirement had not been met and a 30 -day deferral was being requested by Staff. Mr. Joe Prager, owner of #8 Barbara Drive, was in attendance to object to the variance. He submitted a petition of signatures of the neighbors in the area. It was stated by Mr. Prager that no one in the neighborhood wanted the variance and he would be back at the November 21, 1988 meeting if that was when the item would be addressed again. He further stated that he was told that the applicants wanted to withdraw the request but had not gotten a letter to Ms. Brown. The Chairman stated that the applicant would have to meet the notice requirement and, unless he does, the item would not be heard. A motion was then made to defer this item until the November 21, 1988 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. October 17, 1988 Item No. 7 File No. Z-5085 Owner: Seth B. Porchia Address: 1623 West 24th Street Description: Long legal Zoned: "R-4” Two-family District Variance Requested: From the Area Provisions of Section 7-101.2-D.2 to permit construction with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: The new addition is needed to provide a living area for an elderly relative. 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 Ana l y,s is The request before the Board of Adjustment at this time is for reduced rear and side yard setback variances. The applicant is proposing to add a one-story addition in order to accommodate space for an elderly relative. The property is zoned "R-4" Two-Family. In this particular zone the ordinance requirement states a rear yard setback is to be 25 feet. The proposal before the Board is for the rear yard to be 2.5 feet, a difference of 22.5 feet. A side yard is supposed to be ten percent of the width of the lot. The lot is 75 feet in width. The applicant is requesting a side yard of 5 feet, a difference of 2.5 feet. There is a considerable elevation from the property to the street. A 20 feet alley is located to the west of the property. There are residential uses along with commercial in the immediate area. There is a drive located on the south October 17, 1988 Item No. 7 (Continued) side of the property where the side yard variance is being requested but is used to access the property on the south of this site. Staff feels the applicant's hardship is the need for the addition as well as the fact of the house being located so far back on the lot, leaving a substantial front yard to West 24th Street. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the rear and side yard variances as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Seymore Treitman represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. Staff stated that a visit was made to the department by Mr. B. J. McCoy of 2417 Marshall Street. Mr. McCoy was objecting to the variance because: a) the rear yard setback would not allow enough separation from his property, b) the alley shown on the sketch is his driveway, and c) he doubts that there is enough separation on the side yard. Mr. Treitman stated that there were several things incorrect in the write-up and he didn't know if that would have any bearing on the hearing. He stated the addition will be one- story rather than two-story as printed. The rear yard request is for 2.5 to 3 feet rather than the 8.8 feet. There is also a request for a side yard variance of 5 feet. From the statements made by Mr. Treitman there was considerable discussion as well as confusion as to what the applicant really was requesting. Staff stated that Mr. Treitman had misrepresented his request. When the application was taken, first of all the plot plan was out of date for what was acceptable by Staff. There was confusion even then as to what Mr. Treitman was requesting. The sketch was off because the plot plan was incorrect. Staff was then asked if there would be a problem with simply acting on what the applicant was requesting at the meeting. After a considerable amount of discussion and due to the fact the neighbor was objecting as well as the fact that Staff's recommendation may change, Staff stated that it would recommend a deferral of the item until the November 21, 1988 meeting. October 17, 1988 Item No. 7 (Continued) Mr. Treitman stated that his client had a true hardship with the elderly relative. Presently, the person is sleeping in the living room and the applicant wanted to get this addition built as soon as possible. A thirty-day deferral would present a hardship to the applicant. Staff was asked if there was any way this matter could be corrected and handled before the next regularly scheduled meeting. Staff stated that the only way would be to suspend the vote of this item until a meeting could be held on the site with at least five members present to review the request. A motion was made to defer this item until a special meeting can be held on the site at which time a vote can be taken. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. SPECIAL MEETING: (October 24, 1988) A special meeting regarding this item was attempted on the above date. Scheduled to attend were six members of the Board of Adjustment. For reasons unknown to Staff, only three members were in attendance along with two staff persons. Those members present were Cynthia Alderman, Jim Mitchell and George Wells. The applicant, along with Seymore Treitman, the contractor for the job, was in attendance. Also in attendance was the neighbor to the south, B. J. McCoy. Since there were not enough members of the Board of Adjustment in attendance, no official vote was taken. The members present listened to the comments from both the applicant, contractor and neighbor. Mr. McCoy stated that he was not necessarily objecting to the variances being requested but wanted some clarification as to exactly what the applicant was going to construct and the amount of encroachment. He further stated that when approached by the contractor, different amounts of encroachments were stated to him. The contractor and applicant both disagreed with what Mr. McCoy stated. Staff stated that the amount of encroachments Mr. McCoy stated were the same ones Mr. Treitman, the contractor, stated when the application was first taken. Mr. Treitman's foreman arrived at the site. He stated different dimensions from what the contractor had stated earlier at the gathering. After more discussion, the Board members present stated that they were all confused as to what the applicant wanted to construct and agreed with Mr. McCoy's concerns. Due to the confusion, a new survey October 17, 1988 Item No. 7 (Continued) should be obtained showing the exact dimension of the addition and the exact location of the property line. Staff was informed to allow time for the survey to be obtained and to place this item back on the November 21, 1988 agenda. October 17, 1988 Item No. 8 File No. Z-5089 Owner: Donald E. Rice Address: 101 Poinsetta Drive Description: Lot 17, Brook Hollow Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the Area Provisions of Section 7-101.2-D.2 to permit construction with a reduced side yard setback. Justification: The variance is needed in order to align the new construction with the house and avoid the loss of an established shade tree. 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 the construction of an addition over an existing concrete slab for the purpose of a hobby workshop with a reduced side yard setback. Presently the side yard is 6.3 feet and applicant wishes to maintain that same setback with the addition. The property is zoned "R-2" Single Family which requires the side yard to be 10% of the width of the lot. The lot is 75.7 feet in width; therefore the side yard should be approximately 7.8 feet, a difference of 1.5 feet. The new addition will be enclosed and aligned with the principal structure on the site. October 17, 1988 Item No. 8 (Continued) Initially a permit was obtained for the work in 1981 for a dog run with a hobby shop as a future undertaking. The slab was constructed except now the applicant wishes to extend the area with a 10' x 16'9" extension. A new drive extending from the existing drive is constructed all but for the concrete to be poured. A cage-like structure is presently on the site where the slab is located. Surrounding the site are residential uses with some commercial. Markham Street is a minor arterial with a substantial traffic flow. Poinsetta Drive is a residential street with curb and gutter in place. Staff feels the applicant does display a hardship due to the fact this particular location is the only available area on the lot to achieve the applicant's intent. No adverse hardship will be placed on the adjacent property owners. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Donald Rice was in attendance. There were no objectors present. Mr. Rice stated that he had no problems with the Staff's recommendation. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. October 17, 1988 Item No. 9 File No. Z-5091 Owner: William D. and Nina Mathis Address: 1200 South University Avenue Descriptlon: Long legal Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variances Requested: 1. From the Area Provisions of Section 7-103.3-D.1 and 3 to permit construction with reduced setbacks. 2. To allow multiple buildings on one site. Justification: Because of the redesign of the intersection at 12th and University Avenue, the variances are needed to achieve the best development possible for the site. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The proposal before the Board of Adjustment is for the development of the southwest corner of University Avenue and 12th Street. The development will consist of a convenience store, gas operation, automatic carwash and the possibility of a future express lube operation. All construction will be built with the highest specifications. The site will be paved with a combination of asphalt and concrete paving and will be landscaped according to requirements of the Landscape October 17, 1988 Item No. 9 (Continued) Ordinance. The curb cuts and driveway as well as the site plan in general have been designed in cooperation with the City Engineering Staff according to the applicants' letter. It is further stated by the applicant that because of the redesign of the intersection at 12th and University Avenue and the City's taking of approximately a 20 foot strip across the north boundary of the site, the north side dimension of the site has been reduced from 158 feet down to 139 feet. The property is zoned "C-3" General Commercial and the front yard setback requirement is 25 feet. The frontage for University Avenue will meet that requirement but not the frontage to 12th Street. The applicant seeks a variance to encroach within 17 feet of that frontage. A rear yard setback requirement is also 25 feet. Because of this site being located on a corner and zoned commercial, the applicant has to meet both 25 foot frontages. Regardless of the street frontage the applicant chooses as the building frontage, rear yard setbacks will be needed for both. Therefore, the rear yard to the front to 12th Street indicates a 10 foot setback and the one to University Avenue indicates a setback of 16 feet. The difference for both varying from 15 feet (West 12th Street) to 9 feet (University Avenue). Also associated with this proposal is the request to allow more than one building on one site. Since there exists the issue of the variances, the Board of Adjustment also has the right to act on the request of multiple buildings on one site. The buildings will serve the different uses stated in the first paragraph. Presently, part of the site is vacant with a commercial operation of a pest control company on the remaining portion. Surrounding the site is a mixture of commercial uses with some residential uses in proximity. There exists two drives on the site from University Avenue and one from West 12th Street. The vacant portion of the lot has mature vegetation with the concrete and paving in a deteriorating condition. Staff feels the applicants' hardship is the fact of the City's pending redesign of the intersection on West 12th and University Avenue. October 17, 1988 Item No. 9 (Continued) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variances and multiple buildings on one site as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Barksdale McKay represented the applicant. Reverend Daniel Ward, pastor of the Unity Missionary Baptist Church located at 1223 South Garland, was in attendance to make a statement on record regarding the church's position on the development of the site. Mr. Barksdale McKay stated he had no problems with the Staff's recommendation. Mr. Ward stated that the church was not objecting to the variances but had a list of concerns composed in a letter, which he wanted submitted as part of the record. He stated that no meeting had occurred between the church and the developer. In the letter submitted by Reverend Ward, there were listed four areas of concern. ( 1) All parts of the site under consideration for construction of a convenience store are less than 300 feet from the church building. They desire that regulations preventing the sale of beer and wine under the circumstances be enforced. (2) Both of the parties share the same hilly elevation and they wanted the opportunity to work together on the excavation and leveling of the site for the mutual benefit of both owners. One of the church's buildings is located near the property line and could be adversely affected by excavation of the ground nearby. (3) The church would like to work with the new owner on landscaping and fencing along common boundary lines. (4) The church is also concerned that the proposed automatic carwash might have an offensive noise level and requested it be designed to avoid this problem. Mr. McKay stated that the carwash would be of the conventional type that is presently being used by most service stations in the City and no offensive odors should be present. A Board member then asked if it was the intent of the owner to sell alcohol and Mr. McKay stated no. He further stated that as the agent for the owner, he foresaw no problems with meeting and working with Reverend Ward regarding the four concerns. A motion was them made to approve the variances as filed. The Staff was informed to make the letter submitted by Reverend Ward a part of the official record. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 abstention (Mitchell). October 17, 1988 Item No. 10 File No. Z-5101 Owner: James and Carolyn Duke Address: 5111 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 Variance Requested: From the Use Provision of the Central Little Rock Ordinance of Section 43-34.2-D. to permit a catering service to operate as a Conditional Use. Justification: The request for this permit is in order to make available to businesses in the immediate and surrounding areas a service which is not incompatible with what normally occurs in a High Density Residential zoned area. Present Use of Property: Residential Proposed Use of Property: Residential /commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering lssues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the operation of a catering service as a Conditional Use in a High Density Residential zone. The property is located in the Central Area of the City and the uses are governed by the Central Little Rock Ordinance rather than the Citywide Zoning Ordinance. Located in the Quapaw Quarters, this site presently is being used as a four-unit two-story apartment building. The October 17, 1988 Item No . 10 (Continued) applicant plans to use one of the apartments on the bottom floor, a total of 650 square feet of space. Surrounding the property is a mixture of different uses being residential, commercial and office. East 8th Street is built to standards with no immediate plans for widening with some on- street parking. To the east there is a paved drive that leads to the south or rear of the site where approximately 3-4 parking spaces could be provided. The applicant stated that this area would be used for the loading of deliveries. MacArthur Park is located approximately one block south of the site. Included in the letter to the Board, the applicant states that the business will be strictly catering, not a retail operation, and all food products will be delivered to the clients' offices. There will be one full-time employee. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building or property. The business hours will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with no expansion of the building foreseen. STAFF „RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mrs. Juanita Singleton represented the applicant. There was one person in attendance, Mrs. Norma Povio, who was concerned about the parking in the area. Mrs. Singleton stated that there were no problems with the conditions stated in the Staff's recommendation. Mrs. Povio stated that parking in the area is a problem. She has only one parking space available on the street in front of her house. She wanted to'know where the parking for the business would be located. Mrs. Singleton stated that it would be only she and another employee and the parking would be to the rear of the site, not on the street. Since the operating hours will be during the daytime, the tenants would be gone to work. October 17, 1988 Item No. 10_...(Continued) A motion was then offered to approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff's recommendation and to include that all parking for activities pertaining to the catering business be located to the rear of the site and not on the street. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. October 17, 1988 Item No. 11 - Other Matters Applicant: James P. Keary Address: 5503 B Street, #20 Request: Clarification of the Height and Area Exception Provisions to the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance STAFF ANALYSIS: This request is before the Board of Adjustment as a result of a referral from the City Attorney's office. Mr. Keary is disagreeing to the sections of the City of Little Rock Zoning Ordinance which address height and area, Section 5-102. This particular section is referenced when determining the placement of accessory structures on residential zoned property. It is Staff's understanding that the disagreement stems from a complaint of which Mr. Keary was the initiator to the City Zoning Enforcement office. The complaint was regarding an accessory building constructed at 522 South Oak Street. Mr. Keary feels the building is constructed too close to the property line and presents a fire hazard to the adjacent property of which he is the owner. Supposedly, the accessory structure was built without a permit being obtained. After the enforcement complaint action was brought to the attention of the owner, a building permit was requested and obtained (No. 8806194). Mr. Keary is questioning whether the City used proper judgment by issuing the building permit since the construction was completed. He also feels that those sections of the Height and Area Provisions used in a request for an accessory building (ie, Section 5-102.B. and Section 5-102.E.) are confusing and misleading. The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to make a determination as to whether the Height and Area Exceptions Provisions of Section 5-102 is being interpreted wrong by the City Staff and if a change is needed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was in attendance at the meeting. There were no other persons present to speak regarding this matter. Staff explained to the Board the issues concerning the October 17, 1988 Item No. 11 (Continued) clarification. Mr. Bob Brown of the Zoning Enforcement Office was in attendance and addressed the Board regarding what was found on his site inspection. Mr. Brown stated that the accessory structure is located approximately 16 inches from the owner's property line. Located next to this property is another principal structure which is approximately 37 inches from the property line of that property which is Mr. Keary's house. Presently, this case is under Enforcement. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Smith, the owner at 522 South Oak, was informed of the procedure and stated that he would either move the structure or come before the Board to obtain a variance. Mr. Keary addressed the Board and stated that the clarification which he was seeking is to that particular section of the ordinance (ie, Section 5- 102.6) which states all single family and two -story structures shall be separated from accessory structures by a distance of not less than six feet. The law states this fact and he feels that the accessory structure in question should be six feet. He went on to further describe what the owner was storing in the accessory structure such as 55 gallon drums labeled EPA. The official's, in his opinion, are not interpreting the law correctly. It was asked of Mr. Keary if this lot was a corner lot and why does the building set so far back. Mr. Keary stated that this was an old house and lot. In fact, it is a carriage house which was built before the adoption of the ordinance. The lot is low and there will be some problems with flooding. The situation is very dangerous. There was considerable discussion among the Board regarding the exact intent of the ordinance. One member stated that he was very reluctant to limit a property owner's ability to use his lot depending upon what the neighbor had already done on his property. Another felt that the applicant has some good points for the intent and purpose of that section of the ordinance. Staff again stated that the Board's position was only to interpret whether Staff was properly using that section of the ordinance for the intent for which it was written. More discussion continued, after which a motion was stated to interpret the Height and Area Exceptions Provisions of the Zoning Ordinance to mean that accessory buildings must be at least three feet from a side or rear yard property, that is paragraph e. is applicable for determination of placement of accessory structures. Paragraph b. has no place in determining accessory structures except for accessory buildings located on the same lot. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. OCTOBER 17, 1988 Item No. 12 - Other Matters ( Z-5068) Owner: Tim Dennis Address: 3331 Old South Shackleford Road Zoned: "R-2" (a "C-4" request has been filed) Request: To determine the appropriate zoning district for outside auto storage as the principal use STAFF REPORT: In January 1987 the owner, Tim Dennis, approached the City about operating a storage lot for autos on the property in question. Mr. Dennis operates an auto recovery company and needed a location to store vehicles. An initial inspection was made by the Enforcement staff in January 1987 and, at that time, nothing was being stored on the site. The City determined that the property did not have nonconforming status and there was no basis for allowing an auto storage yard. Based on the enforcement file, the property was fenced in February 1987, and after that the owner started storing cars. Following the normal enforcement procedure, the owner was directed to discontinue the use or file the appropriate rezoning request. After some contact with the Planning office, a "C-4" application was filed by the owner as suggested by the Staff. The Planning Commission heard the rezoning item at their September 20, 1988 meeting and deferred the request. A deferral was approved to allow the Board of Adjustment to review the use and determine the appropriate zoning classification. This action was taken because several Commissioners indicated that they felt that a more restrictive zoning could probably accommodate the use and "C-4" was not needed. During the hearing, Mr. Dennis told the Commission that the property has been used for years and that he plans to purchase additional land for an office. He said the site in question was only being used for auto storage and his business office was at a different location. Staff's position is that the principal use of the property is outside storage of autos which is similar to an auto sales lot and requires a "C-4" rezoning. There is no other activity taking place on the site so the existing use cannot be classified as being accessory or ancillary to another OCTOBER 17, 1988 Item No,. 12 (Continued) use. (A site visit on September 30, 1988 found only two inoperable vehicles on the property.) A commercial parking lot or garage is found in the Zoning Ordinance and defined as "a facility for the temporary storage of motorized or wheeled vehicles." This use is listed as a Conditional Use in the "O-2," "O-3" and "C-1" districts and permitted by right in "C-2" and "C-3." It is the Staff's opinion that Mr. Dennis' storage of autos does not fall under the definition of a commercial parking lot. (The owner was asked to provide a written description of the use and his future plans but nothing has been submitted to the Staff as of this writing.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION; The applicant was in attendance. No other persons were present to address this issue. Tony Bozynski, Zoning Administrator in the Office of Comprehensive Planning, instructed the Board as to the reason this item was before them. He stated the Planning Commission referred the case for a determination as to whether the use should be classified as "C-4" or whether a less intense zone could be obtained with the same intended purpose. Mr. Smith, the applicant, stated that his business is repossession of cars. On a given week, there may be a total of ten or more vehicles on the lot. Once the paperwork is completed, the vehicles are moved away from the site, but until that happens, he has to have some place to store the vehicles. He has been at this particular location doing this type of work for approximately five years or more. Presently, a room in his residence is being used as the office which is not on the site. He would like to be able to build a suitable office as well as make the site more attractive. Fencing presently surrounds the property. A Board member stated that it appears the applicant has an established nonconforming use. Mr. Bozynski stated that the nonconforming use has been established, but Mr. Smith stated that the nonconforming status would not help him because no expansion can occur and within the next few months, he has to increase his employees by at least two people. Further discussion continued regarding what uses are included in a "C-4" zone and what other lesser intense zones did the Planning Commission have in mind. After this OCTOBER 17, 1988 Item No. 12 (Continued) particular period of discussion, a motion was made to inform the Planning Commission that the Board determined that this particular use does fall under the "C-4" zoning. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. October 17, 1988 Item No. 13 - Other Matters Adoption of a resolution amending that portion of the Bylaws that specifically states that all work on approved variances is to be completed within thirty-six (36) months of the date of approval. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (September 19, 1988) During the discussion of this item at the Agenda session, several of the Board of Adjustment members felt that additional time other than six (6) months was needed for approved variances. It was then recommended by the City Attorney present to defer this item until next month's meeting. The deferral would allow time for the proper language to be adopted and additional research done regarding extending the time limit on approved variances. The recommendation was then taken into consideration and all the Board members present unanimously agreed to delaying any vote until the October 17, 1988 meeting. (October 17, 1988) After further research, Staff determined that in order to accomplish the request of the Board of Adjustment for a two- year time limit on approved variances a resolution is needed to change the entire time limit provision. It will be the understanding of all parties involved that each approved variance will have a time limit of two years in which to obtain the building permit as well as to initiate some type of construction before having to appear back before the Board of Adjustment. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: By a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position, the Board passed a motion to change the time limit provisions of the Bylaws which govern approved variances coming before the Board of Adjustment. October 17, 1988 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING There being no further business before the Board of Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. Date Chairman Secretary