Loading...
boa_10 19 1987LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 19, 1987 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 Board approved the minutes of the previous meeting as mailed. III. Members Present: Cynthia Alderman Ronald Pierce John McDaniels Joe Norcross Rex Crain Thomas McGown George Wells Ronald Woods Members Absent: Jim Mitchell October 19, 1987 Item No. A - Z-4893 Owner: Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Hornibrook Address: #14 Pinehurst Circle Description: Lot 14, Block 5, Pleasant Valley Add. Zoned: "R -2" Variances Requested: From the subdivision provisions of Section 37.25 to permit an addition to cross a platted building line. Justification: The purpose of this request is to construct a small room to house a whirlpool tub in order to take advantage of the whirlpool therapy recommended by the applicant's physician. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are no issues to report at this time. B. Staff Analvsis The issue before the Board of Adjustment is that of granting a building line waiver. About six months ago, the Subdivision Ordinance was amended to state basically that any changes within a platted building line will now be addressed by the Board of Adjustment and not the Planning Commission as in the past. The amendment is stated as follows: Building Line Variances In those instances where a recorded subdivision plat has established building setback lines in accordance with the Little Rock Subdivision Rules and Regulations, Variances of those lines shall only be granted by the Little Rock Board of Adjustment. That body shall October 19, 1987 Item No. A - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Staff informed the Board that the application was deficient because the notice requirement had not been met. The Board then made a motion to defer the item until the October 19, 1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (10-19-87) The applicant was in attendance. The Board of Adjustment approved the variance with the understanding that the applicant would still have to meet the requirements of submitting an amended Bill of Assurance, and the filing of a one lot replat in the Planning Department. There were no objectors present. The approval passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 19, 1987 Item No. A - Continued review each building line variance request for hardship circumstances as instructed by Section 3-101. of Chapter 43 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas. Those variances approved by the Board of Adjustment shall be reflected upon a plat of the subject lot /lots which shall be recorded in the Office of the Circuit Clerk of Pulaski County, Arkansas, along with an appropriate Bill of Assurance amendment. In accordance with what is set out in the Subdivision Ordinance, it is now the function of the Board of Adjustment to either endorse or not endorse modifications to any platted building line. It should also be understood that any action of approval by this Board for a building line waiver is not to be considered as final action. In order for any building line waiver to be achieved, two additional steps are needed. First, the Bill of Assurance which is "a legal document specifying the covenants and restrictive conditions applicable to a particular property" has to be amended. This amendment is achieved by addressing the conditions stated in the Bill of Assurance which vary according to the instrument. Secondly, it will be necessary to submit to the Planning Department a one lot replat showing the new changes that have occurred. The applicant's reason for the building line waiver is for the expansion of an existing addition to encroach into the southeast platted building line 6.5 feet. The lot is large in size and the proposed request would not place any impact on the traffic in the area or the adjacent property owners. The expanded addition will be constructed so as to keep with the present design of the house. A hardship does exist and staff sees no problems with the granting of the variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the variance. If the Board chooses to grant this variance, it is incumbent of the applicant to then address: (a) the submittal of an amendment to the Bill of Assurance properly drafted, and (b) the filing in the Planning Department of a one lot replat showing the changes in the platted building line. October 19, 1987 Item No. B - Z-4905 Owner: Sloan Bennett Address: #23 Brooklawn Description: Lots 204 and 205, Brookfield Subdivision Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the height and area provisions of Section 5-102.2/C to permit an accessory structure less than 60 feet from the front property line. Justification: Due to the fact of utility easements being located to the rear of my property, I had no other choice but to place the pool on the adjacent lot which two front yard setbacks. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The applicant is requesting the granting of a variance from the Zoning Ordinance requirement of having a 60 -foot front yard for an accessory structure. The structure in question is an in ground concrete pool that is 50 feet from the front yard setback on Brooklawn and 40 feet from the front yard setback on Rodney Parham Road. The structure is in place and is located on the north side of the existing house. There is an 8 foot privacy fence that surrounds the rear, north, and part of the west property line. A considerable amount of landscaping along with the fence brings the pool from the neighbors to the east. The property itself encompasses two lots, but the pool is located only on one of the lots, and even though the property has a considerable amount of depth, the requirement of the ordinance stating a corner lot has October 19, 1987 Item No. B - Continued to have two front yards does present a hardship for the applicant. Staff feels that due to the fact there is a high enough privacy fence on the property and no impact will be placed on the adjacent property owner or the traffic on either street frontages, there are no problems at this time. The applicant will, if the variance is granted, retain enough frontage on both streets in order to provide for the accessory structure. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the variance as filed. The applicant will still be required to meet all the building permits requirements due to the fact the pool is already in place. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was not present at the meeting. A motion was made to defer the item until the October 19, 1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (10-19-87) The applicant was in attendance. There were no objectors present. A motion was made for approval of the variance subject to the applicant meeting the Traffic Engineering requirement of the blind corner provision of the Traffic Ordinance. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 19, 1987 Item No. 1 - Z-4897 Owner: Jimelco, Inc. Address: 3400 Maple Street Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I-3" Heavy Industrial Variance Requested: From the powers and prohibitions provisions of Section 3- 101.0 /D to permit a mobile hoane for security purposes. Justification: The location of the property makes its a high risk for vandalism, stealing, and break-ins. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Engineering is recommending that the elevation of the floor to the mobile home be a minimum of 258.7 feet, due to the location being in the flood way. B. Staff Analysis: The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the placement of a mobile home on property zoned "I-3" Heavy Industrial for security purposes. A temporary request was granted for placement of the mobile home because of a previous approval for the same request about two or more years ago. The applicant still has to seek reapproval due to the fact the previous approval by the Board has expired. The use on the property at present is that of a Strip Electrical Transformer Company. Inasmuch as the use of the property is intense, the isolation of the property does not present any undue hardship to any of the adjacent property owners, which are of a mixed variety. The applicant does state that during the short period of time at this location the company has had a number of criminal activities occurring. October 19, 1987 Item No. 1 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval subject to the use running with this business and occupant. Also, that the mobile home be used as a residence for security purposes only. At which time the property and use changes hands, the new occupant will need to seek new approval. The applicant also is required to meet the Engineering Department recommendation." BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. John Chandler, Jr., represented the applicant. There were no objectors present. A motion for approval of the variance as recommended by staff was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 19, 1987 Item No. 2 - Z-4814 Owner: Daniel Grundl Address: 14822 Hickory Creek Circle Description: Lot 10, Hickory Creek Subdivision Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the subdivision provisions of Section 37.25 to permit an addition to cross a platted building line. Justification: The rear of my lot is in the flood way, and we need to move everything as far forward as possible. The elevations of the floor are four feet above the floodplain, but we want to be as safe as possible. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis As specified in the Subdivision Ordinance, any modification to a platted building line has to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. The sole action of the Board is to determine whether to endorse or not endorse any proposed encroachment into a building line. When endorsements to modifications are granted, the applicant is required to meet two additional steps in the process, which are: (a) submitting a properly drafted amendment to the Bill of Assurance to the Planning Department, and (b) the filing of a one lot replat indicating the new building line to the Planning Department. All of the above mentioned steps will have to be completed before any building line waiver is considered final. October 19, 1987 Item No. 2 - Continued The request in_ question is for the construction of a porch to a new, under construction house. Location of the property is in one of the newer developments where very few houses have been constructed. What the applicant has proposed is to encroach within a 25 -foot building line approximately 8 feet. Even though the request would place the structure close to the street, staff has no problems with the building line being 17 feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval conditioned that the porch is never enclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. No objectors were in attendance. A motion was made for approval of the variance conditioned upon the porch never being enclosed and the applicant submitting to the Planning Department an amended Bill of Assurance and a one lot replat. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 19, 1987 Item No. 3 - Z-4915 Owner: Kaufman Lumber Co. Address: 3210 Carl Street Description: Lots 2, 3, 4, and N 1/2 of Lot 5, Block 25, C.O. Brack's Addition Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance Requested: From the development criteria provisions of Section 1-104.2/B.1 to permit a waiver from the screening requirements. Justification: Any screening or blocking the view into the storage area in any manner makes this company an easy target for the criminal element. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed.Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Enqineerinq Issues Engineering is requiring a minimum of 50 feet of right-of-way on Carl Street which the applicant would need to dedicate five additional feet of right-of-way toward. Also, the applicant is now placed on notice that any further building permits to the property will require additional street improvements. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board of Adjustment is a waiver from the screening requirements for security purposes. The ordinance requirements state that "outdoor storage of equipment, materials, or merchandise must be screened by a six-foot opaque fence." This property is located in one of the older established neighborhoods of the City. Surrounding the property is some residential use. Zoned "I-2" Light Industrial, the property is used to store lumber for Kaufman's Lumber Company. The property is located on three small lots that are paved and surrounded by a October 19, 1987 Item No. 3 - Continued six-foot wire fence that fronts on Carl Street which is narrow in size. There appears to be a system used for the storage of the lumber in that different types of lumber are stacked in different locations on the lot, and the stacking is considerably high. Even though this use is a part of the major Kaufman Lumber Company, the actual location is about a block away from the principal location of the company. The applicant did present a letter from the Police Department recommending that the waiver be granted because of the possible potential of problems in providing police patrol against theft. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The recommendation of staff is approval for the waiver on the north and east sides but not for the west and south sides, due to the fact of the impact of the use to the residential zoning. Also, the applicant'is required to adhere to the recommendation of the Engineering Department which is the dedication of 5 feet of right-of-way on Carl Street, and the applicant is now placed on notice that any future building permits for this property will require further street improvements. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Bob Watkins represented the applicant. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Watkins stated that the reason for the request was because of the high crime in the area. he also stated that he had submitted a letter to the staff from Captain Randy Reed of the Police Department, Patrol Division stating that the screening requirement would hinder the Police patrol for this location. Mr. Watkins stated that the staff's recommendation of screening the west and south side would hinder the view especially on the west side where the alley is located. A Board member then asked staff if there was anyone who could tell him what the screening requirement was and staff then stated the requirement of the ordinance. The Board member then wanted to know if there were any stipulations which staff said their were none. A considerable amount of discussion among the Board members and the applicant occurred. Mr. Watkins then was asked what screening could he agree to, and he stated that the applicant would prefer screening only be required on the south side. Staff then asked the applicant about the meeting of the requirements of Engineering, and Mr. Watkins stated that the applicant had no problems with meeting those October 19, 1987 Item No. 3 - Continued requirements. A motion was then made to approve the variance only for the north, east, and west sides, but not for the south side, and the meeting of the Engineering requirements. The motion then passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent. October 19, 1987 Item No. 4 - Z-4918 Owner: Ginger Martin Address: 822 North Clarkson Street Description: Lots 8 and 9, Block 43 Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the height and area exception provisions of Section 5-102.2/B to permit an accessory structure less than 60 feet from the property line. Justification: The proposed location of the pool is the best because of it being the less accessible area in regards to intrusion of invited persons and also as much privacy as afforded on the two lots of the property. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are none to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis What is being brought before the Board of Adjustment is a request to allow for an accessory structure of which is a pool to be placed less than 6.0 feet from the front property line on "H" Street. The applicant is asking that the requirement be waived so the pool can be 49 feet from the front property line on "H" Street. The property is located on a corner lot with two frontages. One is on "H" Street and the other on Carlson. Area -wise the property encompasses two lots. To the rear of the property presently, there is a wooden deck located along part of a brick walkway that leads to a carport and attached frame storage structure that abuts an open alley. The proposed new structure October 19, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued will be located on the south of the property. The frame structure on the front of the property is small in size and located more toward the northeast corner of the lot. The applicant is also proposing a six-foot wooden fence to replace a wire fence which presently serves to separate the adjacent property owner on the south. There also will be a six -foot wooden fence to provide for privacy from the view on Carlson Street. Staff feels that because of the corner lot requirement the applicant has displayed a hardship and chosen the best location for the pool. STAFF REOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the wooden fence not being higher than six feet of the natural grade of the lot. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Richard Farkas represented the applicant. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Farkas was asked if he had any problems meeting the requirements of staff. He then requested a clarification as to what staff was referring to in regard to the fence not being higher than six feet of the natural grade of the lot. Staff then stated that it meant the applicant could not mount the fence on anything that would make it higher than six feet and intrude upon the neighbor to the south. Mr. Farkas then agreed to staff's recommendation. A motion was then made for approval as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 19, 1987 Item No. 5 - Z-4919 Owner: dike Montgomery Address: #7 Eldorado Drive Description: Lot 5, Pleasant Valley, 22nd Hole Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variances Requested: (1) From the rear and side yard setback provisions of Section 5-102 (A) 2.(e) to permit construction of wooden decking around a swimming pool. (2) From the 30 percent land coverage provisions, Section 5-102.(A) 2.c to permit construction of a deck around a swimming pool. Justification: We are building a swimming pool in a limited area, and the extra decking would greatly benefit the installation and convenience to the owner. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: 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 the construction of extra wooden decking to surround a pool that is to be built. The extra wooden decking would be located on the south and west property lines. The ordinance states that an accessory structure has to be at least three feet on the side and rear property line. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of the 30 percent .rear yard provision because with the addition of the extra wooden decking the rear yard would occupy more than 30 percent and the ordinance states that no more than 30 percent for an accessory structure. October 19, 1987 Item No. 5 - Continued The property in question has located on it a two -story brick and frame house. It is located below the street level of Eldorado and abuts the Pleasant Valley Golf Course and a greenbelt strip. To the east and west of the property, there are residential uses. The applicant has secure approval of the request from the Property Owners' Association, and Staff has no problems with the request. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the application as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was not in attendance nor had the applicant met the notice requirement. The Board then made a motion to defer this application until the November 16, 1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 19, 1987 Item No. 6 - Z-4920 Owner: Coulson Oil Company Address: 7400 Cantrell Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-4" Commercial Open Display Variance Requested: From the area regulations provisions of Section 7-103.4 to permit an interior side yard with a reduced setback and an exterior side yard with a reduced setback. Justification: The proposed improvements are a reasonable use of the property, and the resulting facility will be a great improvement. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Engineering is recommending that the southwest driveway on Cantrell Road be closed prior to the Planning Commission acting on the right-of-way abandonment request. B. Staff Analysis At issue before the Board of Adjustment is a request for an interior side yard setback of five feet for the proposed construction of a car wash and an exterior side yard or front yard of 27 feet to allow for placement of gasoline pumps, islands, and an overhead canopy. The property in question is zoned "C-4," but the current and proposed use is for a "C-3" General Commercial zoning. The requirement of the ordinance states that an interior side yard under "C-4" should be 15 feet and an exterior side yard or front should be 45 feet. Closely related and awaiting action by the Planning Commission is a request for a 15-foot October 19, 1987 Item No. 6 - Continued right-of-way abandonment on Kingsrow Drive located on the east side of the property, that is presently an 80-foot right-of-way. Also on the south side, the applicant is proposing to give to the City 10 feet of right-of-way on Cantrell Road. Existing on the property at present is a gasoline service station and what is being proposed is the same use except with a car wash and convenience store included. The present structure will be removed and a new one built. All necessary improvements to Kingsrow Drive and the landscaping requirements are also included in the applicant's proposal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the application conditioned upon the right-of-way abandonment on Kingsrow Drive being approved and the meeting of the engineering requirement which is the closing of the drive on the east corner of Cantrell Road before the Planning Commission acts on the right-of-way abandonment. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert Brown. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Brown stated that he had met with Engineering about the driveway and had no problems with the recommendation of staff. A motion was then made to approve the variance as outlined in staff's reoommendation. The motion passed by a vote 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. October 19, 1987 Item No. 7 - Other Matters - Z-4900-A Owner: James and Sharon Burton Address: 1601 South Pine Street Zoned: "R-3" Request: Ruling to determine whether a nonconformance status still exists at 1601 South Pine Street. The applicants are requesting of the Board of Adjustment a ruling to determine whether the nonconforming status (of a vacant grocery store) is still in existence at 1601 South Pine Street after not being in use for a period of 12 years. In August of this year, the applicants restocked and attempted to reopen the grocery store but were stopped when they tried to obtain a privilege license. In September, the applicants ,sent before the Planning Commission with a rezoning request, but the Commission advised the applicants that they needed to request a determination from the Board of Adjustment as to whether the intent of the nonconforming status still existed. The applicants feel that the intended use has always existed. The store operated under the name of Carrick's Food Market for a number of years. The name remained on the store until August of this year when it was removed in order to hang the new name. The applicants live in one part of the structure with the grocery in the other part. No major structural changes have occurred at the location. The inside and outside are identical to what was there 12 years ago. Except for the meeting of a Health Department requirement of a sink, the same shelves, fixtures, and desire have remained as of 12 years ago. Utilities to the grocery are connected to one meter, the same meter used for the residential part of the structure. The question before the Board of Adjustment is determination of whether the nonconforming status is still in existence. (See attached letter for additional information.) October 19, 1987 Item No. 7 - Continued BOAR OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mrs. Sharon Burton, the applicant, was in attendance. There were no objectors present at the meeting. Staff outlined to the Board all the pertinent information relating to the case. Ms. Burton submitted to the Board bills indicating the commercial use of the grocery and a petition of names from the neighborhood indicating a desire for the store to remain in operation. There was discussion among the Board about the obvious indication that the nonconforming status was no longer in existence. Staff then reminded the Board that the intent of the use as well as no indication of abandonment of the building were the issues the applicant had to prove. Mr. Kenny Scott of the Zoning Enforcement Office stated that he had visited the site, and as far as he could tell the intent was still present. He stated that the interior and exterior of the store were the same as when the store was in operation. It was then discussed among the Board and staff as to the intent behind the Planning Commission sending the applicant to the Board of Adjustment. The staff stated that in their opinion the intent was fo'r the Board to seek some relief because if the property was rezoned, first it would be going against the land use plan for the area and secondly present the possibility of a more intense use with a commercial zoning if the property ever changed hands. After more discussion among the Board, a ruling was then stated that the applicant had proven intent and the nonconforming status should be allowed to continue, henceforth 12 years later. The ruling passed by a vote 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. City Hall Markham & Broadway Little. Rock, AR 72202 James & Sharon Burton 1601 S. Pine Little Rock, AR 72204 My hushand and I are trying to open our store for business. We want to use the store as a grocery store. The store was previous a grocery store, about 12 vears ago. At the tlme, the store was operated under the name of Carrlck's Food Market, which was a non-confirming unit. Therefore, we are undergoing re- zonlng procedures. Although, the store has not been In business for about 12 years. It is basically the same as it was when it was operated under the name of Carrick's Food Market. The outside and inside appearance of the store is identical to what it was 12 years ago, with the exception of Health Department regulations. My husband and I feel that we shouldn't have to undergo rezoning pro - cedures, SInce the store held it's value as a store. The store has been the same for 12 years, structure, fixtures. The name Carrick's Food Market remained on the store through August of 87. Therefore, this means that the store was still existing through August of 87. Is it possible that we might be able to operate the store as a non - confirming unit? We are not asking to huild a store in the area; we just want to reopen our store that's already in the area. Sincerely, James & Sharon Burton