Loading...
boa_11 21 1988LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY OF MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 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: George Wells, Chairman Cynthia Alderman Jim Mitchell Rex Crane Diane Chachere Ronald Pierce Thomas McGowan Members Absent: None Two Open Positions City Attorney present: Stephen Giles LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AGENDA ITEMS NOVEMBER 21, 1988 I. DEFERRED ITEMS A. Z-5085 1623 West 24th Street B. Z-5083 #10 Barbara Drive II. VARIANCES REQUESTED 1. Z-3986-B I-430 and Rodney Parham Road 2. Z-5102 12907 I-30 3. Z-5103 200 Fountain Street 4. Z-5114 918 West Markham Street 5. Z-5116 1716 North Harrison III. OTHER MATTERS 6. Interpretative Issue - 1110 East 21st Street 7. Adoption of the 1989 Calendar of Meetings for the Board of Adjustment November 21, 1988 Item No. A 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 Analysis 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 4.2 feet, a difference of 20.8 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 that the side yard vary from 5 feet to 5.5 feet, a difference of 2.5 feet to 2 feet. There is a considerable elevation from the property to the street. A 20 foot 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 side of the property where November 21, 1988 Item No. A (Continued) 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. Seymour 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. November 21, 1988 Item No. A (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 November 21, 1988 Item No. A (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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: (November 21, 1988) Staff is recommending approval of the side and rear yard variance as filed with the new survey as requested. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (November 21, 1988) Mr. Seymour Treitman represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. Mr. Treitman agreed with the Staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the two variances as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. November 21, 1988 Item No. B 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 . EngineeringTllssues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The 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. November 21, 1988 Item No. B (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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (November 21, 1988) Staff informed the Board of Adjustment of a letter received from the applicant requesting that the item be withdrawn. A motion to that effect was made and passed by a vote 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. November 21, 1988 Item No. 1 File No. Z-3986-B Owner: L.A.A.C.O. Incorporated Address: I-430 and Rodney Parham Road Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: 1. From the Height Regulation provisions of Section 7-103.3.D to permit construction of a structure with a higher height than allowed. 2. From the Parking provisions of Section 8-101-1.F to permit less parking spaces than required Justification: The variances are needed because not enough land area exists in order to spread out the structure and provide a sufficient amount of parking. 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 request before the Board of Adjustment at this time is for a height variance to accommodate the construction of a Wilson Inn at the southwest corner of I-430 and Rodney Parham Road. As stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance, a "C-3" zone has a height restriction of 35 feet. The applicant's proposal is for a five - story building with a height of 48.7 feet, a difference November 21, 1988 Item No. 1 of 13.7 feet will exist. To the north, west and east of the site are all commercial uses primarily. To the south are all residential single family homes. Presently, the site has a vacant building on it with mature vegetation covering the remaining site area. The terrain of the lot varies in certain sections. Bordering on the north side of the site is Rodney Parham Road, a minor arterial, with I-430 bordering on the east side. Located within the immediate area is Budgetel, a four-story hotel, on the east. In the applicant's letter to the Board, it is stated that if the hotel were spread out over the site by dropping the top floor, there would not be enough area to provide for the parking as required by the Ordinance. Even with the top floor remaining as filed, the applicant is deficient in the parking by approximately 6 -7 spaces. Parking requirements for hotel and motel state that one space per guest room should be provided plus 10% of the total of all parking spaces required for developments larger than twenty rooms. The applicant's proposal indicates a total of 108 guest rooms will be constructed; therefore, 108 parking spaces will be needed plus an additional 10 %. The applicant further states that the site has an elevation below Rodney Parham and I-430. The south perimeter is abutted by heavily wooden area composed of old mature trees that reach a greater height, providing sufficient screening for any utilization of the subject property. It is the south perimeter that Staff has strong concerns since this is the location of the single family residences. The site plan provided to Staff indicates that parking will be utilized in this location. In Staff's opinion, this will add an additional impact to the residents beside the fact of the extended height requested, especially since some excavation will have to occur in order to prepare the site for construction. Ingress and egress will be provided through the shopping center to the west, K-Mart. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of both the height and parking variances due to the impact placed on the adjacent residential property to the south. November 21, 1988 Item No 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (November 21, 1988) Mr. Bill Putnam was in attendance to represent the applicant. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board of the new recommendation from Staff which was approval of the two variances subject to: (a) the applicant filing for the right-of-way abandonment of Barksdale Drive, (b) providing a five year lease agreement for the additional parking that is needed and will be utilized by the employees of the inn on the K-Mart Shopping Center, and (c) providing of additional landscaping along the south property line. Mr. Putnam stated he had been in communication with his client and felt that all three conditions would be met. He further stated that the building would be an inn and not a hotel /motel. There will be no provisions for dining or eating on the premises, nor will there be a bar located on the site. The concept of the inn is strictly for lodging. The applicant for the property is the Los Angeles Athletic Club. A motion was then made to approve the two variances conditioned upon Staff's new recommendation for approval. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no, 0 absent, 1 abstention (Crane) and 2 open positions. November 21, 1988 Item No. 2 File No. Z-5102 Owner: Shirley Hood /Tom Marks Address: 12907 I-30 Description: Long legal Zoned,: "C-4" Open Display Variance Requested: From the Paving Requirement provisions of Section 8-101.4 -1 to permit a delay in the paving requirements. Justification: 1. The property is being leased presently but it is also up for sale by the owner. Present Use of Property: Commercial /Used Auto Dealership Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /Used Auto Dealership STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues 1. There are none to be reported at this time. 2. Financially, the applicant states that he is unable to afford the expense needed to meet the requirements. B . Staff Analysis This request is before the Board of Adjustment as the result of an extended and involved zoning enforcement action. The request is for a delay for a period of two years in the paving requirements as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Fronting on I-30, the property is gravel with at least three drive entrances from the access road. Surrounding the site are a mixture of November 21, 1988 Item No. 2 (Continued) commercial and industrial uses. Also located on the lot to the east is European Psychic, a building which houses a fortune reading business as well as serves as a residence. On-site review of the lot, there were a mixture of used cars, boats and motors, and trucks as well as a trailer which Staff assumes serves as the office for the building. Immediately west of the site is a vacant lot; south, a considerable amount of rear yard exists which abuts a heavily wooded area; and north is I-30. Because of the extended and involved enforcement action, the following information has been provided to Staff. The property in question was annexed into the City on December 18, 1979. Even though Mr. Marks is renting the property, all enforcement investigations indicate that he is the one controlling the property. Initially, it was thought that the property was owned by Mr. Marks but it was later explained to the Enforcement Staff that the property is part of an estate. Since it appears to the Enforcement Staff that Mr. Marks, in fact, controls the interests of the property, all enforcement action has remained with him. On June 3, 1988 a privilege license was issued for the operation of a business. Early in 1988 Mr. Marks made a visit to the Environmental Codes office inquiring as to the requirements for development of a used auto sales lot as well as an office addition to his mobile home. Mr. Marks was informed of the developmental regulations applicable to his proposed business. He was also advised as to what would be necessary for submittal. On April 26, 1988, an enforcement officer observed a used auto sale lot in operation at 12907 I-30. The enforcement officer determined the property was being used in violation of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that areas subject to vehicular traffic be paved and landscaped to comply with the City standards. The owner, Mr. Marks, was issued a courtesy notice allowing 15 days to bring the property into compliance or file for appropriate waivers through the Board of Adjustment and /or City Beautiful Commission. On July 6, 1988, a call was received by the Staff person in charge of the Board of Adjustment from the Enforcement Office requesting that a call be made to Mr. Marks informing him of the requirements needed to appear before the Board of Adjustment. After several November 21, 1988 Item No. 2 (Continued) attempts on the above date, Mr. Marks was contacted on July 7, 1988 and informed per the request. During the latter part of August or September, Mr. Marks came to the Office of Comprehensive Planning to state why he was unable to meet the filing requirements. Mr. Marks was then informed again as to the procedure and Staff's opinion regarding the Board waiving all of the filing requirements. On October 4, 1988, a citation was issued to Mr. Marks for appearance in the First Municipal Court on October 14, 1988 regarding the above-mentioned violation. On October 6, 1988, Mr. Marks came again to the Office of Comprehensive Planning asking if he filed for a delay in the paving requirements, would that dismiss the citation to appear. Staff informed Mr. Marks that no, it would not dismiss, delay or circumvent any actions pending by the City Attorney's office or the Zoning Enforcement office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the delay in the parking (paving) requirements for a period of two years as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (November 21, 1988) Mr. Tom Marks, the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors present. Mr. Marks stated that the problem with meeting the requirements for paving of the lot are: (a) he is not the owner of the property, but the lessee, and (b) presently the property is up for sale by the owner. The property is part of a 12 acre estate and the parties are trying to find a buyer for all 12 acres. If no buyer is found, then the parties intend to subdivide the property into smaller tracts. If this occurs, it is Mr. Marks' intention to purchase the property which he now leases, but when the subdividing of the property will occur may not be known for a year or more. A member of the Board asked for a review by Staff regarding the involved zoning enforcement action. Mr. Bob Brown of the Environmental Codes office stated that the enforcement officer in charge of the case could not attend the meeting. He further stated that the enforcement action on this case had been going on for several months. Warning notices had November 21, 1988 Item No. 2 (Continued) been sent to the applicant until the final notice to appear in Municipal Court was issued. The action of that court appearance is pending on the action taken by the Board of Adjustment on the applicant's request. It was then asked of the applicant by the Board if the money for leasing possibly could be used against the purchase of the property. The applicant stated that he did not think so because of the number of parties involved in the estate sale. It was then asked how long did the applicant feel it would take before he knows about the sale. The applicant stated, "maybe a year ". A motion was then made to approve the delay in the paving requirements for a period of twelve months based on property ownership, with any additional time to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. November 21, 1988 Item No. 3 File No. Z-5103 Owner: Phillip Weber Address: 200 Fountain Street Description: Lot 22 and the S 1/3 (16.66 feet) of Lot 22, Block 3, Young's Park Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the Height and Area Provisions of Section 5-102-C to permit construction of an accessory building with a reduced side yard setback. Justification: To build the proposed garage, the amount of distance required would render it too narrow for the intended use. 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 What the applicant is proposing before the Board of Adjustment is for the construction of an accessory building with a reduced side yard setback. The requirement of the Ordinance is an accessory building should be three (3) feet from any side yard. The applicant's request is for a zero (0) side yard setback. The proposal will consist of a 12' x 36' garage. A pre- existing concrete slab, 12.5' x 22' will be used as the major slab for the new construction. The north edge of the roof will be vertically within 2 - 3" of the north edge of the property line. November 21, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) The site is surrounded by all residential property. Presently, on site is a one-story frame house. Besides what is stated as a justification, there exists two holly bushes of mature size immediately to the south of the existing concrete slab which the applicant wishes to preserve. Fountain Street is a built-to-residential standard street. Access to the new proposed garage could be taken possibly from either the concrete drive leading from Fountain Street or the rear (west side of the property) where an open alley exists. Located along the rear property line is a wooden and wire gate along with a fence and hedges. On the north, there is located a brick fence that extends along the property line where the proposed garage is to be located. Staff feels the applicant does, in fact, have a hardship due to the fact of the desire to keep the mature holly bushes, and no major impact will be placed on the neighbor to the north. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the side yard variance for only the front one -half of the garage, approximately 14 feet. If the entire proposal is allowed, it would present a problem of a fire hazard as well as allowing for 36 feet of building along the north property line. Proper drainage must be provided to ensure no run-off problems to the neighbor to the north. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (November 21, 1988) Mr. Phillip Weber, the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors present. Mr. Weber stated that he disagreed with Staff's recommendation because he really wanted the entire garage enclosed and did not understand why Staff only approved approximately 14 feet, or approximately one-half to be enclosed. Staff stated the approval was for only one-half enclosure because of the requirement being three feet.. In the event the entire garage was allowed to be enclosed, there would be at least thirty-six feet of building along the property line, not to mention a possible fire hazard. Mr. Weber asked "what fire hazard "? The neighbor to the north had no buildings along the property line. Staff stated yes, that was true but that is not to say that one day the neighbor may be requesting a November 21, 1988 Item No. 3 (Continued) similar or same variance in order to place a building on his property line. Another Staff member stated that the intent behind the recommendation was to allow the applicant part carport and garage, thus providing for enclosure for storage as well as protection for the vehicles. Mr. Weber stated that with the existing concrete slab, there would be a setback of at least 1.9 feet instead of a 0 setback. Staff stated the sketch was wrong and needed to be changed. Another Staff member stated that the sketch indicates what the applicant submitted on his survey. After several attempts by different Board members to secure a motion but failing by a lack of votes in support or seconds, a motion was finally made to approve the variance subject to Staff's recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. November 21, 1988 Item No. 4 File No. Z-5114 Owner: Frank Whitbeck Address: 918 West Markham Street Description: Lot 1, Signature Subdivision, Block 277, to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance Requested: 1. From the Powers provisions of Section 3 -101-F to permit parking on a lot not properly zoned. 2. From the Paving Requirements of Section 8-101.4-1 to permit a waiver from the paving requirements. Justification: The parking will only occur for a temporary period of time. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Commercial /Future building site for Signature Life Insurance Company STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff AnaIysis The property located at the northeast corner of La Harpe Boulevard and Markham Street is presently being used as a parking lot in order to accommodate some of the employees of Signature Life Insurance Company located across the street at 912 West Markham Street. Because of the above action occurring, the November 21, 1988 Item No. 4 (Continued) applicant was cited by the Zoning Enforcement office and advised to seek relief from the infraction by coming before the Board of Adjustment. Thus, the applicant is requesting two variances. First, a variance is needed in order to continue to park on a lot zoned for another use and intent. Secondly, the request is for a variance to permit a two-year delay in the paving requirements as stipulated for uses such as a parking lot. Located at one of the City's busiest intersections during the week, that portion of the lot where the parking occurs is presently vacant. Future plans indicate that the site will be the new home of Signature Life Insurance Company. The applicant states in his letter to the Board that construction for the new building is anticipated to begin within the next two years. Surrounding the site are either office and /or commercial uses. The site is bound on the north by La Harpe Boulevard, the west by Chester Street, south by West Markham Street, and on the east by a parking lot. Staff feels that no adverse impact will occur to the adjacent properties if the request is allowed. However, Staff does feel that a year -to -year review would be more appropriate due to the need for parking in this particular area of the City and to prevent any leasing of the parking spaces to persons other than employees of Signature Life Insurance Company. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the two variances for a period of one year at which time the applicant will be required to return to the Board of Adjustment for further review. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (November 21, 1988) Mr. Frank Whitbeck, the applicant, was in attendance. There were no objectors present. Mr. Whitbeck stated that the two year request was needed due to the fact of the pending construction of Signature Life's new office building and the need for additional parking by his employees. A motion was then made to approve the two variances for a period of two years with review by the Board of Adjustment after that time period. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. November 21, 1988 Item No. 5 File No. Z-5116 Owner: Cora Geels Address: 1716 N. Harrison Street Description: Lot 11 (except the north 3.5 feet thereof), Block 3, Englewood Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Reauested: From the Height and Area provisions of Section 5-102-C to permit an accessory structure less than the required setback to a street frontage. Justification: At the time of construction, there was no knowledge of the Zoning laws and a need for a building permit. To move the structure would probably destroy it. 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 Due to the fact of a courtesy notice being issued by the Zoning Enforcement office, this case is before the Board of Adjustment. The applicant has constructed on- site a 10' x 10' storage shed mounted on an existing concrete slab. There existed a 13' x 7' storage building for approximately 40 years or more but was destroyed when a driver lost control of a car and demolished it. The requirement of the Ordinance states that accessory buildings which front on to a street November 21, 1988 Item No. 5 (Continued) shall have a setback of 15 feet from said street. The accessory structure in question is located 6 feet from the frontage of Cantrell Road, a difference from the requirement of 9 feet. Located on a corner with North Harrison to the east and Cantrell Road to the north, the lot is small in size, being only 46.5 feet. Surrounding the site are all residential uses with some commercial in close proximity. North Harrison is a built-to-standard residential street and Cantrell Road is a four-lane State highway. In the letter to the Board, the applicant states that when the storage building was constructed, spikes were driven into the concrete slab to make it more sturdy. Surrounding the accessory structure are mature bushes and trees with a 20 foot alley immediately to the west. Staff feels that the applicant does in fact have a hardship due to the size of the lot and the pre- existing slab already being in place. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (November 21, 1988) Ms. Cora Geels, the applicant, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Ms. Geels stated she agreed with Staff's recommendation. A motion was then made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. November 21, 1988 Item No. 6 - Other Matters Owner: Little Rock School District Address: 1110 East 21st Street Request: A determination as to the intended use that exists on the property located at the above address. This request concerns a 2.8 acres of land owned by the Little Rock School District located at the southwest corner of 21st Street and Confederate Boulevard. The property was used by the Little Rock School District as their bus terminal facility for approximately ten years until July, 1987. The facility was used to perform all service and maintenance on the Little Rock School District's bus fleet as well as store the buses when they were not in use. The School District relocated their bus terminal facility in July, 1988 and has continued to use the facility as one of their principal warehousing facilities to store furniture and other school supplies. The School District has been contacted by the Lend Lease Trucking Company to lease the facility for a period of five years. The Lend Lease Trucking Company intends to operate the facility with no significant improvements to the parking area and intends to conduct all maintenance and mechanical work inside the building except for washing the trucks. There is an open wash bay area on the back side of the building that is not enclosed and will be used for washing their vehicles. Research of this request indicated no written official record exists regarding steps having been taken by the owner for the use that was in existence. More or less, it is believed that permission was given through an administrative action. In Staff's opinion, a nonconforming use was established by the Little Rock School District's operation of the property as a terminal facility. It is, however, unclear as to whether that allowed nonconformity was extended to the Little Rock School District only or rather open-ended for the use to be extended as the School District deems appropriate. November 21, 1988 Item No. 6 (Continued) The issue before the Board of Adjustment is to make a determination as to which use is still in existence; (1) reverting the property back to the use for which it is zoned which is residential, or (2) should the property continue in the nonconforming status of industrial which was established by the Little Rock School District fleet maintenance service. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (November 21, 1988) Mr. Jim Mitchell was in attendance to represent the applicant, the Little Rock School District. Since Mr. Mitchell also serves as a member of the Board of Adjustment, he stated that he would be abstaining from the vote on this item. Staff detailed to the Board a summary of the issues involved with the case. The issue before the Board was a determination as to whether property owned by a public sector and used improperly for the zone given it can extend that use to a private entity once the property has been vacated without going through the proper steps in order to get the property rezoned. A considerable amount of discussion occurred. The concern of Staff was the fact that once the use was vacated by the public sector, Little Rock School District, the City's position on the intent was for the property to revert back to the designated zone which is residential rather than the nonconforming use of industrial. The agent, Mr. Mitchell, stated that in the opinion of the Little Rock School District, the nonconforming use should continue because basically the same type of use will exist without any structural changes to the building. A motion was then made to determine that the use can continue by allowing the Little Rock School District to lease the property. This extension is not meant to set a precedent for future applications with similar circumstances, nor can the Little Rock School District sell the property to the lessee with the intention of the use continuing. The motion is only to serve the lease agreement for land leased trucking. Any future changes such as lessee or owner must be brought back before the Board of Adjustment for review if the use is to continue. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, 1 abstention (Mitchell) and 2 open positions. November 21, 1988 Item No. 7 - Other Matters Name: Adoption of the Calendar for the 1989 meeting dates for the Board of Adjustment BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The 1989 Board of Adjustment Calendar of Meetings was approved as printed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. A motion was made a passed by the same vote instructing Staff to forward to the City Manager a memorandum requesting that the number of members on the Board of Adjustment be reduced from nine members to seven members. November 21, 1988 Item No. 8 - Other Matters - Rehearing Request Staff informed the Board of a complaint letter received on November 17, 1988 requesting a rehearing on Case No. Z-5101 located at 511 E. 8th Street for a catering business that was approved on October 17, 1988. The letter written by Kinnard Kohler of 500 E. 8th Street, Unit C, stated he was in the required 200 feet for notice of property owners but did not receive a notice. Staff informed the Board that a check had been made of Mr. Kohler's legal description of his property as well as the list submitted by the applicant of property owners that were notified and he, in fact, was within the notice requirement area but his name was not on the list submitted. Since Staff erred in accepting the list of property owners as submitted but not done by the requirements as stated in the Bylaws, the recommendation to the Board is for a rehearing to be granted. The City Attorney present concurred and felt a formal motion was needed. A motion was then made to grant the rehearing and passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 2 open positions. The rehearing will take place at the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Adjustment on December 19, 1988. B O A R D OF A D J U S T M E N T VOTE RECORD DATE / • F ITEM NUMBERS MEMBER Thomas McGowan I j V- v George Wells Jim Mitchell v ✓ V Diane Chachere ✓ 1/ ,, �j Earline Douglas Cynthia Alderman ✓ 4O v 6 Eduard Scharff, Jr. V1, Ronald Pierce l✓ v �/ v Rex. D. Crane AYE 0 NAYS A ABSENT ')-3A ©STAIN November 21, 1988 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING There being no further business before the Little Rock Board of Adjustment, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. DATE: Chairman Secretary