Loading...
boa_12 21 1987LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES DECEMBER 21, 1987 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A quorum was present being nine in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The Board approved the minutes of the last meeting as mailed. III. Members Present: Thomas McGowan, Chairman Rex Crain Ronald Pierce Joe Norcross George Wells Cynthia Alderman Ronald Woods John McDonald Jim Mitchell IV. City Attorney Present: Pat Benton December 21, 1987 Item No. A - Z-4877-A Owner: I-30 Industrial Park Rentals Address: 6900 Block of Allied Way Description: Lots 4, 5, and 6, I-30 Industrial Park Zoned: "I-2" Variance Requested: From the floodplain restrictions of Paragraph A of Section B of Article 5, Ordinance No. 14,534 to permit construction of new buildings in the floodway. Justification: Due to the shape, size, and configuration of the lot. Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REVIEW A. Engineering Issues Issues reported by Engineering will be discussed in the staff analysis. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board of Adjustment is a variance to allow for the construction of new buildings within the floodway. The ordinance states that (a) within the floodplain (100-year flood elevation), there exists an area or the channel or stream bea called the floodway and so designated on the 'type 15 flood insurance study. No building or structure shall be allowed within said floodway; (b) in order to build or operate any structure or use, it must be an allowable use among those specified as allowable uses in the base or principal zoning classification, provided further so such use shall adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodway of any designated creek, stream, tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch, or other drainage facility or system; and provided still further, no such use or combination of uses shall raise the level of the one hundred (100) year flood a distance of one (1) foot. December 21, 1987 Item No. A - Continued The site in question is located in the I-30 Industrial Park, and the applicant has filed with the Planning Commission for consideration of a Planned Unit Development. In January of this year, the Army Corps of Engineers redesigned the boundaries for the floodway in this area of the City, which placed the entire site in the floodway. Prior to the redesign by the Corps, the applicant had taken steps to put in place the existing fill on the property to raise it out of the then floodway boundaries. The applicant purchased the property in October 1986, for development as a small business Industrial Park prior to the revisions of the floodway maps. Engineering reports that the applicant has demonstrated a hardship due to the fact of the revision of the floodway map in January of this year by the Army Corps of Engineers and the existing fill on the property being done prior to the revision. Engineering's recommendation of approval is conditioned upon the following: (1) The floor elevations being at least 2 to 3 feet above that which is required by the 100 year flood level. (2) That any further filling of the site must come from the boundaries along the bank of Fourche Creek. Engineering's intent is for there to be no fill brought on-site from outside of the property. Before the Planning Commission can take action on the proposed Planned Unit Development, the Board of Adjustment has to determine whether relief to the applicant can be allowed for the proposed construction in question, and if the variance is granted, the applicant will be required to deed that property which is in the floodway to the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval subject to and pursuant of the conditions as reported in the staff analysis and recommended by Engineering. Also meeting of the necessary requirements of deeding to the City of Little Rock that property located in the floodway. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (8-17-87) The Board of Adjustment deferred this item until the September 21, 1987, meeting due to the fact that neither the applicant nor a representative was present at the meeting. Also, the applicant had not returned to staff copies of the notification requirements. There were objectors present at the meeting. A motion for deferral was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. December 21, 1987 Item No. A - Continued PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (9-21-87) The applicant had requested a 60-day deferral. A motion was made to allow for the deferral and passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 4 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) The Board was informed by staff that the applicant had requested for this application to be withdrawn. A motion was then made to withdraw the application. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. December 21, 1987 Item No. 1 - Z-1178-A Owner: Arkansas Radiator Works, Inc. Address: 3901 Asher Avenue Description: Part of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Block 1, Dixon Mill's Addition to the City of Little Rock Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance From the area regulations Requested: provisions of Section 7-103.3/E.3 to permit an addition with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: We are requesting the variance due to the angle of the lot and in order to have a depth of 30 feet which is required to accommodate full-size cars, a work bench at the rear of the building, and a safe area for employees to use in removing grills and radiators. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commercial STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for a rear yard setback of 7 feet for the construction of an addition to the west side of the present structure on the site. The use is commercial in an "I-2" zone which requires the setback to be 25 feet on the rear. The newly constructed addition would provide four new stalls to the present one-stall structure that is on the site. To the rear of the property there is a hill with mature vegetation, to the west and north there is commercial use and to the south there is office use. The site fronts onto Asher Avenue which is located in an area of industrial and commercial uses primarily. December 21, 1987 Item No. 1 - Continued The applicant is proposing to upgrade the existing parking area according to the requirements of the Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval subject to the applicant meeting the parking requirements and design as well as the requirements of the Landscaping Ordinance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) Mr. Edward Fryar represented the applicant. There was no one in attendance that wished to object to the request. A motion was made to approve the requested variance as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. December 21, 1987 Item No. 2 - Z-2668-A Owner: Hillhaven, Inc. Address: 5720 West Markham Description: Long Legal Zoned: "O-3" General Office Variance From the area regulations provisions Requested: of Section 7-102.3/D.1 to permit an addition to encroach within the front property lines. Justification: 1. Because many of our residents are transported to and from the facility by means of ambulance and stretcher, the awning on Pierce Street provides them with safety and protection from the natural elements. 2. The awning on Markham was installed to extend our patio area making it more usable by our residents. Due to the intense sun and rain, without this awning patients would not be able to enjoy the out -of- doors. Present Use of Property: Nursing Home Proposed Use of Property: Nursing Home STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis This application is before the Board of Adjustment because of an enforcement action. At issue is the encroachment of two already-constructed awnings within the front yard setbacks. The site in question is at the corner of Pierce and Markham Streets. The awning on Pierce is constructed over an existing driveway. The awning encroaches within the front yard setback 23.5 feet, leaving a front yard of 2.5 feet. December 21, 1987 Item No. 2 - Continued There is a sidewalk and curb separating the front yard from the street. The awning on Markham Street covers an existing concrete patio area. The patio area has a front yard setback of 22.5 feet which makes the awning the same and leaves the front yard setback to be 3.5 feet. The site has on it a four-story brick structure that is zoned "O-3" and used as a nursing home. There is mature landscaping on the site and the awnings do not block any of the views from either Pierce or Markham Street. To the south of the property is St. Vincent's Medical Center, to the west there is an office use and to the north and east there are two parking lots. Staff does feel that the applicant possess a hardship because of the corner lot provisions as set out in the Ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval subject to, at which time the awnings become damaged because of the weather or other factors, the applicant is to replace, repair or make arrangements to remove the structures. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) Mr. Jim Ives, the Administrator for Hillhaven, spoke on behalf of the application. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Ives was asked if he had any problems with staff's recommendation. He stated he had none. A motion was then made to approve the application as recommended by staff. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. December 21, 1987 Item No. 3 - Z-4941 Owner: Steve Turner Address: 3001 Elam Description: Lots 7 and 8, Block 206, John Barrow Addition Zoned: "R-3" Single Family Variance From the height and area exceptions Requested: provisions of Section 5-102 /C to permit an accessory structure to be less than 60 feet from the front property line. Justification: My reason for wanting the garage in this location is because of the grade and if I place it anywhere else I would have to bring in dirt to build up the location. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis What is being brought before the Board of Adjustment at this time is a request for the construction of a garage that will be 34 feet from the front property line on West 30th Street. The Ordinance states that an accessory structure, which this will be, on a corner lot has to be 60 feet from the front yard setback. Presently on the property is a one-story frame house with an attached one-car carport. The applicant has recently purchased a second car and the garage is needed to protect the car from the weather. The request is compatible with the surrounding houses in the neighborhood. The applicant does in fact have a hardship due to the corner lot requirement of two front yards. A new driveway will be constructed to access the garage. December 21, 1987 Item No. 3 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) Steve Turner, the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors present. A motion was made and passed to approve the variance as filed. The vote being 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. December 21, 1987 Item No. 4 - Z-4944 Owner: Robert J. Shell Address: 320 South Gaines Street Description: The South 30 feet of Lot 8 and the North 3 feet of Lot 7, Block 133, Original City of Little Rock Zoned: "C-4" Open Display Variances 1. From the parking provisions of Requested: Section 8-101.2/6 to permit a waiver from the parking requirements. 2. From the area regulations provisions of Section 7-103.4/E.2 for reduced side yard and Section 7-103.4/E.3 for a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: A variance is being requested in order to expand the existing structure for more space. Present Use of Property: Office Proposed Use of Property: Office STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The application before the Board of Adjustment is for approval to allow the construction of a second floor over a parking area to be attached to a two-story office building and for a waiver from the parking requirements for an office use. What the applicant is proposing is to add a second floor with approximately 2,112 sq. ft. to the existing building. This will be accomplished by constructing a second floor over the existing parking area and still allow five parking spaces as currently used. The addition will increase the size of the structure to 4,686 sq. ft. In order to construct the second floor, the applicant need approval to encroach into the existing already nonconforming side yard setback which is required by Ordinance to be 15 feet and the December 21, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued applicant wants to have zero feet and the rear yard which is required by Ordinance to be 25 feet and the applicant wishes to have 5 feet. The second floor expansion will primarily be created by columns at ground level. In order to meet the requirements of the Ordinance for the required parking spaces of which are 17 for an office use, the applicant is proposing to continue leasing the present 12 spaces from a lot less than 300 feet from the site and with the five parking spaces on -site the requirement would be met. The site in question is located in the downtown district. To the north of the site there is a commercial use, to the east there are two parking lots, to the south office use, and to the west across a 20 foot alley there is a parking lot and two-story structure. Directly adjacent to this site there is a two -story office use that is a converted apartment building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff at this time would like to approach the Board without a specific approval or denial of the request by the applicant. We feel that from the viewpoint that the current ownership's desire for expansion of the existing structure would have been appropriate if it was without the variance, but in regards to setbacks and parking the present Ordinance "C-4" zoning is not appropriate for a downtown district, but for a highway commercial district. We further would like for the Board to provide staff with some policy direction as to variances on parking in the downtown district. What staff is requesting of the Board is some input or direction on how to approach present or future requests by either encouraging or discouraging when advising applicants. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) Mr. Fred Perkins represented the applicant. There were no objectors in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Perkins spoke in regard to the present zoning for the property being inappropriate for the present use on the property, but even with an attempt to downzone the property, the requested variance will still need to be obtained. During the agenda session, there was discussion in regard to the off-site parking that the applicant was proposing. Mr. Perkins stated that for the additional space that the applicant was requesting the applicant had no choice but to lease the parking spaces. The 12 leased parking spaces are within 300 December 21, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued feet of the present structure and with the five on-site, the required 17 parking spaces could be met. The Chairman, Mr. McGowan, asked staff if there had been any thought given to providing applicants with a particular type of lease agreement. Staff stated that there have been times when the Board has requested a certain period of time to be attached to lease agreements, but the Planning Office does not provide applicants with a particular type. Bob Shell, the applicant, addressed the Board with some additional information. Mr. Shell stated that since the conception of the business there have been physical restraints on them because of the limited space for parking available in this area. Presently he has five parking spaces but possibly could have eight, and with the leased 12 spaces the requirement for parking will be justified more so without the addition. Over the past years with new technical advances in his area of business, the additional space is needed in order to meet the demand of the increase in business. Mr. Shell also presented a letter from National Garage that stated that if in the future additional parking spaces are needed, National Garage could provide the applicant with them. If a particular time period needs to be placed on the lease agreement, Mr. Shell stated that he would be willing to comply. The present leased parking spaces are provided on a month-to-month lease. A motion was made to approve the application subject to the applicant providing a lease agreement for a period of five years for the parking. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. The Board also agreed is in a future agenda session to discuss in detail some policy on addressing the need for off-site parking for future applications with the problem of meeting the parking in the downtown area. December 21, 1987 Item No. 5 - Z-4947 Owner: Markham Street Baptist Church Address: 9601 W. Markham Street Description: The North 200 feet of the East 136.6 feet of Lot 5, West Markham Street Subdivision Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variances From the off-street parking provisions Requested: of Section 8-101-H.2 to permit a parking lot in an "R-2" zone. Justification: The proposed parking lot will provide us with parking spaces south of Markham Street, thereby easing the existing and anticipated safety concerns of the church. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Parking Lot STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Engineering is recommending the applicant either eliminate parking space No. 37 on the sketch or provide for the placement of a bumper block between parking spaces Nos. 37, 36 and 26. There possibly will be street improvements required for Wedgewood Road, therefore the parking design will have to be reviewed, approved and signed off by Engineering. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for a variance from the off-street parking requirement to allow for a parking lot on a lot zoned for residential use. The site in question is to the east of Markham Street Baptist Church across Wedgewood. At present there is a one-story frame house on the lot and surrounding the site is mixed uses of commercial, residential and some office. There is a gravel drive that fronts on Markham Street. If the variance is approved, the applicant is proposing for 156 parking spaces to help alleviate the concern of safety for church members who presently utilize an existing parking lot on the north of Markham Street, which also December 21, 1987 Item No. 5 - Continued presently is up for sale and has approximately 50 parking spaces. Staff feels that the applicant has attempted to provide for a proper design for the conversion while preserving the large, mature trees that are presently on the site. The Ordinance states that off-street parking should be provided within 300 feet of the principal structure. This being a corner lot, there will not be any impact as to the obstruction of view or the traffic flow to either Markham Street or Wedgewood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval with the understanding of the applicant that the requirements of Engineering will need to be met. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) Mr. Carl Slocum of the Long -Range Planning Committee of the Markham Street Baptist Church represented the application. The Chairman asked if there were any problems with the applicant meeting staff's recommendation, Mr. Slocum stated there were none. No objectors were present at the meeting. A motion was then made to approve the request subject to the Engineering requirements which includes street improvements on Wedgewood. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, 1 abstention (Rex Crain). December 21, 1987 Item No. 6 - Z-4948 Owner: Richard H. Blank, Jr. Address: 5525 N. Grandview Description: Lot 59, Grandview Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance From the area regulations provisions of Requested: Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit an addition with a reduced side yard. Justification: A variance is warranted in order to allow the new den to include the existing garage space and continue the east building line to the south. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the construction of a new den addition onto the southeast corner of the existing structure. The addition will adjoin and align with an existing garage structure which at present time is 7 feet 8 inches from the property line. The addition will have a 15 foot 0 inch section which will protrude 2 feet out making an exterior wall at this area 5 feet 8 inches from the side property line. Also included in the construction plan is a new concrete stoop approximately 3 feet tall that will be added to the east side of the house. The stoop itself protrudes 3 feet 6 inches from the existing house and has steps on each end. It will also have a canvas awning directly above it. December 21, 1987 Item No. 6 - Continued Staff feels that the applicant's request is of minimum impact because of the intrusion within the side yard. For the new den and stoop, the applicant by Ordinance definition would need 6 feet. The house is located in one of the more established neighborhoods where in the past few years several people are attempting to make improvements to their present structures. The site in question has mature landscaping that will provide added screening to the property owner to the east. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) Mr. Richard Blank, the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the variance requested as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. December 21, 1987 Item No. 7 - Z-4949 Owner: B.F. Phipps Address: 7214 "N" Street Description: Lot 20, Riffel and Rhoten's Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance From the area regulations provisions of Requested: Section 7-101.2 /D.1 to permit an addition to encroach within the required front yard setback. Justification: In order to provide protection for my car from the weather. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis This application is before the Board of Adjustment as the result of an enforcement action. The request is to allow for an already constructed one-car carport to encroach within the front yard setback. The carport is a aluminum covered top that is supported on poles located at each end. There is a concrete drive in place and the carport is approximately 5 feet from being attached to the house. The house is a one -story frame structure. The encroachment of the carport leaves a front yard of 13.6 feet. "N" Street is a narrow street with no room for on-street parking. The structure has no adverse impact to any of the surrounding property owners. Due to the lot being locked in, the applicant could not access any of the area to the rear in order to provide for a possible relocation of the carport. December 21, 1987 Item No. 7 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) The applicant was in attendance at the meeting with his son speaking in his behalf. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. December 21, 1987 Item No. 8 - Z-4950 Owner: Sarah Collins Address: 2524 Izard Street Description: Lot 7, Block 32, Kimball's South Park Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance From the area regulations provisions of Requested: Section 7-101.2 /D.1 to permit a front yard less than 25 feet. Justification: We are unable to build a house due to the 25 foot setback requirement on West 26th Street. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The applicant is requesting of the Board of Adjustment approval of a front yard setback of 20 feet rather than the required 25 feet as stated in the Ordinance. The lot is presently vacant and located in the Quapaw Quarter. The lot fronts on Izard Street and West 26th Street, which because of-it being a corner lot, is required to have to front yard setbacks of 25 feet. Located in this area of central Little Rock are a number of different sizes and styles of homes. Surrounding this property there are some older homes that have been or are presently being renovated. The site is elevated which gives the site appearance of both Izard and West 26th Street being lower in elevation. The applicant does have a hardship because of the lot being on the corner and having to provide 25 feet on both frontages. December 21, 1987 Item No. 8 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION Mr. Brett Swearingen of Jim Walter's Homes represent the applicant. There were no objectors in attendance. Staff informed the Board that there was a problem with the notice requirement being met. The notice form was returned with only three signatures. The lot is 50 feet in width and if proper notice was given within 200 feet of the property there should have been more names. Mr. Swearingen stated that an attempt was made to obtain the signatures, but most of the people were renters and not owners. Staff then informed the Board that the requirements for the notice does not require a certified abstract list, but it is impressed upon the applicant the importance of meeting the notice requirement no matter the resources. A motion was then made to defer this item for a 30-day period and the applicant was instructed to obtain the necessary signatures by the next meeting on January 19, 1988. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. December 21, 1987 Item No. 9 - Z-4951 Owner: Joe White, Jr. Address: 2323 South Maple Description: Lot 12, Block 5, Chesterfield Square Addition Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variance Requested: From the area regulations provisions of Section 7- 101.2 /D.1 to permit construction of a house with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: We are unable to build a house due to the 25 foot setback on West 24th Street side. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is for a reduced front yard setback on the frontage to West 24th Street. A 21 foot setback is being proposed for the construction of a house on a vacant lot that is at the corner of Maple and West 24th Street. The requirement by the Ordinance is a corner lot is considered to have two front yards and should have a setback of 25 feet for both frontages. The lot is surrounded by residential uses, a church and school. To the east side there is an open alley. West 24th Street is narrow in size and there is some on-street parking. The neighborhood is one of the older established ones where the property owners are attempting to renovate the houses. The lot is 50 feet in size and the requirement of the Ordinance would not allow for the setbacks to occur. Staff feels that a hardship has been displayed by the requirement of 25 feet on both frontages to West 24th and Maple Streets. December 21, 1987 Item No. 9 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) Mr. Brett Swearingen of Jim Walter's Homes represented the applicant. There were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. December 21, 1987 Item No. 10 - Z-4952 Owner: Buddy and Carolyn Coleman Address: #15 Cascade Drive Description: Lot 30, Block 2, Seventh Installment, Pleasant Valley Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. Zoned: "R -2" Single Family Variances of Requested: 1. From the area and heights exceptions provisions of Section 5-102.2/C to permit an accessory structure less than 60 feet from a front property line and coverage of more than 30 percent of the rear yard. 2. From the subdivision provisions of Section 37.10/C to permit a change in a platted building line. Justification: Due to the impending improvements of Hinson Road, which will restrict our temporary access from Hinson to the back yard, we wish to complete the back yard improvements at this time. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Engineering states that the proposed construction of a pool house will definitely have to be moved back further to the north. Also the pool appears to be acceptable in the proposed location but until a final determination can be made on the widening project of Hinson Road, engineering is withholding approval until these issues can be address at the meeting. December 21, 1987 Item No. 10 - Continued B. Staff Analysis The applicant is coming before the Board asking for approval for two variances. First of all the applicant is wanting to construct a pool in the rear of the property, which according to the Ordinance is an accessory structure which has to be at least 60 feet from a front property line. Also included is a request for a waiver from the 30 percent rear yard coverage. The pool would be approximately 8 feet from the street frontage of Hinson Road and with the construction of a pool house, patio, walkway and ramp, the coverage of the rear yard would be more than 30 percent. Secondly, the proposed construction would cross over an existing 40 foot building line or planting screen. The pool house that will be encroaching within the building line will have a 3 foot rear and side yard, which are not an issue because the Ordinance allows this amount of setback for an accessory structure. In order for the applicant to cross a platted building line additional steps are needed if these variances are approved. A one-lot replat will have to be filed in the Planning Office as well as the filing of an amended Bill of Assurance. These two steps must be accomplished before any building line waiver is considered complete. The property in question is elevated a considerable amount of distance from the street frontage on Hinson. To the south of this site is a school and all other sites are residential uses. The applicant is proposing a fence along the frontage to Hinson and there is mature landscape separating the property to the west. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Due to the issues stated in the engineering comments, staff is withholding a recommended action until some agreement can be decided upon between the applicant and Engineering. If the Board approves the requested variances after modifications, the applicant will still need to file an amended Bill of Assurance and a one-lot replat in the Planning Department. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) Mr. Buddy and Mrs. Carolyn Coleman were present at the meeting. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the Board that the Engineer for the applicant, Jim Summerlin, had telephoned to say that unfortunately he would not be able to attend the meeting because of being in December 21, 1987 the hospital and saw no problems with working with the Engineering Department to achieve an agreement about the engineering issues. Mr. and Mrs. Coleman stated that they could go along with an approval condition upon their Engineer reaching an agreement with the Engineering Department. (For the issues of Engineering, see attached sheet.) A motion was then made to approve the application condition upon the applicant achieving an agreement with Engineering concerning the issues regarding the widening of Hinson Road and the applicant's request for variances and building line waivers. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. City of Little Rock Engineerinq Division Department of 701 West Markham Public Works Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 371-4800 M E M O R A N D U M December 17, 1987 TO: Anna Brown, Planner FROM: Mike Batie, Chief of Civil Engineering SUBJECT: Board of Adjustment Agenda - December 21, 1987 Item 10 15 Cascade Drive Item 10 at 15 Cascade Drive requests a Board of Adjustment Action for the following items: a. Accessory structure less than 60' from the front, b. Accessory structure more than 30% coverage, c. A change in the platted building line. The only two items that are of concern to the Engineering Section are the location of the proposed pool and the location of the proposed building located at the rear of the property adjacent to Hinson Road. After a field investigation and measurement, it appears that the proposed pool's location is acceptable. However, the proposed building located on the southwest corner of the property needs to be located to the north at least 6' (six) from the property line. This is due to the future widening of Hinson Road which was one of the Bond Projects in the last election. Also, the owners should agree to provide a 10' temporary construction easement during the construction of Hinson Road, adjacent to their southern property line at the time of construction. It is my understanding that residents of the area are trying to obtain an improvement district in order to construct a masonry retaining wall along Hinson Road. If this wall were constructed and the foundations of the wall were located below the proposed street widening area, the proposed building could be located as shown which is 4' north of the south property line on Hinson Road. However, without the wall in place at the time of construction, the Engineering Section would have to insist that the proposed building be no closer than 6' (six) from the southern property line. If you have further questions, please contact me at any time. cc: Don McChesney Larry Young December 21, 1987 Item No. 11 - Z-4953 Owner: Southern Real Estate and Financial Corp. Address: 300 S. University Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variances From the height restrictions provisions Requested: of Section 7 -103.3 to permit a height higher than the requirements of the Ordinance. Justification: In order to permit an entrance atrium and two permanent structures supporting a tent -like configuration to exceed the height specified in the Zoning Ordinance. Present Use of Property: Commercial Proposed Use of Property: Commerical STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None to be reported at this time. B. Staff Analysis The proposal before the Board of Adjustment at this time is for a height variance for the University Mall site. The height variance is for 93 feet and the Ordinance states that the permitted height for a "C-3" zoning, which the site is on, is 35 feet. This then makes the applicant's requested height variance for 58 feet. The plans call for a second level featuring a teflon-coated skylight which will play a integral role in the heating and cooling process. The height being requested is compatible to the Delta Financial Center which is also in the area. The skylights, although tall, are not wide enough to obscure any view of adjacent houses in the area. Surrounding the site are mixed usage of commercial, office and residential. The residential uses on South McKinley are situated on a higher elevation than the Mall. This expansion, if December 21, 1987 Item No. 11- Continued approved will create an additional 70,000 sq. ft. of new retail space. Also included in the plan is a 300-car parking deck that will be added to the north. Staff feels that the applicant does have a hardship. This property was a transversion to the "C-3" zoning from the old Ordinance "F-11" zoning. The present "C-3" zoning does not allow for the modern concepts of Malls as they appear today with the multicolored roof designs, higher heights and energy saving devices. Staff is recommending approval of the height variance as filed. Mr. Chris Parker, an attorney representing the applicant, was in attendance at the meeting. There was one objector at the meeting, Mr. Charles Nickerson, who spoke against the height variances because of his concern that the view of the structure would block his house. Staff stated that the highest peak of the tent-like structure would be in the center not the total structure. After a considerable amount of discussion among the Board and applicant, a motion was then made to approve the height variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. December 21, 1987 Item No. 12 - Z-4955 Owner: Brown and Brown Construction Address: Kings Pointe Addition /Kirby Road Description: Lot 3, 4, 6 and 7, Kings Pointe Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variances Requested: From the subdivision provisions of Section 37.10.C to permit a change in the building line. Justification: We designed our house plans to fit on the preliminary plat with a standard 6 foot side yard setback, which meant we designed a deeper, narrower house to fit the lot, which in effect still has the same amount of feet on each side yard as normally required and in some cases more. Since that time, the City changed the front building line setback to a varied requirement of up to 47 feet back. This change makes several lots unable to be built upon. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Engineering is requesting that the applicant complete all necessary changes on Kirby Road which have to be signed off by the department before any building permits are issued for the four lots if the building line waivers are approved. B. Staff Analysis The request before the Board of Adjustment is for the endorsement to allow for four lots (3, 4, 6 and 7) in Kings Pointe Cove Addition off Kirby Road to be changed with varied building lines on each lot. The lots in question front onto a cul-de-sac which the usual policy is the building line is platted wherever the lot becomes 60 feet in width. December 21, 1987 Item No. 12 - Continued The lots are located in one of the newer developed subdivisions. There are eight lots in the subdivision with two lots now under construction. The four lots in this application are vacant at this time. Surrounding the property is residential usage and mature vegetation. Kirby Road is constructed to City standards up to a point which is past this location. Located on all four lots to the rear are utility easements with varied distances in width and length. In place is the cul-de-sac with the four lots having various widths, lengths and depths. The applicant has certain house design plans for each lot and feels that the meeting of the requirement in the subdivision Ordinance would not allow for the best possible use of the lots. If these requested building line waivers are endorsed, it will be necessary for the applicant to complete two additional steps before the process is finished. In order for this to be accomplished, the applicant will have to file in the Planning Department an amended Bill of Assurance as well as the filing of a replat to show the new building lines for each lot in the Planning Department and County Court House. On the west side of Lot 3 the applicant is showing a side yard setback of 6 feet, which staff feels should be 7 feet. Because of this fact, the applicant also needs to obtain a side yard variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the building line waivers for Lots 3, 4, 6 and 7 with the conditions that the applicant file an amended Bill of Assurance and a replat for the new building lines in the Planning Department. Staff does not recommend approval of the side yard setback on the west side of Lot 3. The house designed on the sketch could be moved to meet the requirements for the side yard. The applicant is also required to meet the conditions stated in the Engineering Comments. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (12-21-87) Mr. Bob Holloway represented the applicant. There were no objectors in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Holloway spoke regarding what was involved in the Engineering issues. Staff stated that not knowing the total involvement part of the issues dealt with the fact that on a previous request the applicant had made commitments for improvements to a December 21, 1987 Item No. 12 - Continued neighbor's property on Kirby Road and the problem has not been corrected. Mr. Holloway stated that he was aware of the problem and felt that the issues could be corrected. Mr. Holloway then stated that Mr. John Wright, the contractor, wanted to know if the application could be changed to substitute Lots 1 and 2 for Lots 6 and 7 because he was close to closing on the purchase of the lots. Staff stated that it could not consent to the request because Lots 1 and 2 were not part of the legal description for the legal ad that was published. Mr. Wright then asked if the application could be amended to exclude Lots 6 and 7 from the restriction on the Building Permit as specified by the Engineering Department in order for him to proceed with the closing on the purchase of the lots. Staff stated that Engineering concerns were that some restriction be placed on the construction in order for the applicant to satisfy the earlier commitment. A motion was then made to amend the application to exclude Lots 6 and 7 from the restriction by Engineering on the Building Permit, but allow it to remain for Lots 3 and 4. The motion also included the approval for the building line waivers for all lots, but not the variance on the side yard on Lot 3 that staff felt the applicant needed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent. December 21, 1987 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Chairman Secretary L ��--88 Date