Loading...
boa_06 15 1987LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD JUNE 15, 1987 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being 9 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Thomas McGowan George Wells John McDaniel Ronald Woods Cynthia Alderman Joe Norcross Jim Mitchell Ronald Pierce Rex Crane Members Absent: None City Attorney: Bob Hall June 15, 1987 Item No- A - Z-4827 Owner: Shur-Value Stamps, Inc. Address: 6901 I-30 Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I-2" Variances Requested: From the off - street parking provisions of Section 8-101/I to permit a parking area not meeting ordinance design standards. Justification: The property in question was acquired for future expansion of a dairy facility. The plans are to expand in the next two to three years. At the present time, the property is used for parking empty trailers which are waiting to be loaded and moved to their final destination. It would create a real hardship on the company if they had to black top or pave the property due to the fact that it would have to be torn up when the company is ready to expand. For this reason, we are asking for a 3-year variance to allow the necessary time to finalize the plans. Present Use of Property: Parking Proposed Use of Property: Expansion of Packaging Facility STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported as of this writing. B. Staff Analvsis The request is to permit parking of vehicles on an area not meeting ordinance standards. The minimum pavement requirement is: 1 1/2 inches asphaltic concrete hot mix with a 5-inch compacted base or a double surface treatment with a 5-inch compacted base or a 4-inch concrete slab and shall have appropriate bumper guards as needed. June 15, 1987 Item No. A - Continued The property is currently being utilized for parking by the Gold Star Dairy which is located directly to the south. The dairy owns both tracts and their future plans call for expansion and using the site in question. Because of this, the owners feel that paving the lot would cause a hardship due to the fact that in 2 to 3 years the pavement surface would have to be removed. Staff agrees with this and supports a temporary variance for the site. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the pavement variance for a period of 24 months from the date of approval. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (May 18, 1987) Staff reported that the request needed to be deferred because the applicant failed to notify the property owners. A motion was made to defer the request to the June 15, 1987, meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (June 15, 1987) The applicant was present and agreed to the staff's recommendation to allow the variance for a period of 24 months. There were no objectors. A motion was made to grant the variance for a period of 24 months from the date of Approval, June 15, 1987. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. June 15, 1987 Item No. 1 - Z-4833 Owner: John Bale, Jr. Address: 100 South Broadway Description: Lots 11 and 12, Block 120 Original City of Little Rock Zoned: "I -2" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-104.2/E.1 to permit a new canopy with a reduced setback. Justification: The reason for needing the variance is a lack of room. The property is 100 feet and is zoned "I-2" thus requiring a 50 -foot setback which would leave no property to utilize. This proposed canopy is for customer protection from the elements and for security due to better lighting. Present Use of Property: Service Station Proposed Use of Property: Service Station STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to allow a reduced front yard setback for a 24' x 30' canopy. The property is zoned "I-2" which calls for a setback of 50 feet for the front yard. Because of being on a corner and the ordinance definition of a front property line a front yard setback from both West Markham and Broadway is required. The site has a width of 100 feet so meeting the setback requirements does present some difficulty and staff feels that a hardship does exist. The building does not have the necessary setbacks, but that is because it was constructed prior to the adoption of the current ordinance. Another factor that should be considered as part of the justification for this variance is the "I-2" zoning which is not a compatible district with the development pattern found June 15, 1987 Item No. 1 - Continued in the downtown area and this does create some problems. One concern that the staff has is the site's location which has high visibility. Because of this staff encourages some type of streetscaping /landscaping be undertaken to improve the appearance of the property. This is consistent with what has occurred directly to the north on Broadway and along West Markham to the east. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance with the condition that the necessary supports for the canopy be attached to the pump island. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The-applicant, Jerry White, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. White said that supports for the canopy will be in line with the existing pump island. A motion was made to grant the variance subject to the supports for the canopy beinq attached or aligned with the pump island. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent, and 1 abstention (George Wells). June 15, 1987 Item No. 2 - Z-4844 Owner: Robert L. Alexander Address: West 29th and Spring Street Description: Lot 1, Block 2 Liberty Hill Addition Zoned: "R-3" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.3/D.1 to permit a new residence with a reduced front yard setback. Justification: Lot size, being located on a corner and wanting to save the existing trees. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The issue before the Board is to grant a setback variance for a front yard for a new residence. By being situated on a corner, the ordinance requires front yard setbacks of 25 feet in the "R-3" District for both street sides. With a 50-foot lot this is very difficult to do and still have an attractive and functional house. The reduced yard area for the West 29th Street side will not have an impact on the neighborhood because that type of setback is consistent with the existing developed lots in the area. The requirement for the 25-foot setback from both streets is a recent interpretation of the ordinance. So, in older areas, there are very few corner lots that comply with that provision. The proposed site plan is a reasonable option because of providing a more than adequate side yard on the south and maintains the setback relationship to West 29th Street established by the residence to the east. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. June 15, 1987 Item No. 2 - Continued. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. June 15, 1987 Item No. 3 - Z-4845 Owner: Robert E. Munn Address: 44 Inverness Circle Description: Lot 14, Block 11 Pleasant Valley Addition Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.3 to permit a deck and pool with a reduced rear yard setback. Justification: (1) Due to the unusual shape and sharp slope of the property, it is necessary to encroach on the 10-foot utility easement noted on the survey. Copies of release letters from each of the utilities have been secured. (2) Since the pool deck will be tied into existing decks, the proposed construction would also encroach within 25 feet, actually 5 to 6 feet, of the back property line. Again, due to the unusual lot shape and slope, it is necessary to place the pool as noted on the drawing. An important consideration in this request is that the back of the lot borders an undeveloped drainage easement and, therefore, will not abut anyone else's backyard. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues No comments have been received. June 15, 1987 Item No. 3 - Continued B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct a deck structure with a pool in the rear yard area. There is an existing deck attached to the back of the house, and the plan calls for connecting the two areas and extending the new deck component to within six feet of the rear property line. (A portion of the deck that is in place already encroaches into the setback.) To the north of the lot, there is a large open space, a permanent drainage easement, so the reduced yard space will not have any impacts on the surrounding properties. The proposed construction continues to concentrate all the development in one location which allows the owner to maintain an adequate yard area which is desirable. Staff feels that proper justification has been provided and supports the request. (All the necessary utilities have signed off on the 10-foot easement intrusion.) C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the rear yard setback variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to grant the variance as requested. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. June 15, 1987 Item No. 4 - Z-4846 Owner: O.F. Greer Address: 9504 Warren Road Description: Lot 20, Block 8 Fairfield Subdivisoin Zoned: "R-2" Variances Requested: From the height and area provisions of Section 5-102/2.C to permit a pool to be located less than 60 feet from a front property line. Justification: Being a corner lot and it appears that any location in the rear would require a variance. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The request is to allow a swimming pool, an accessory structure, to be placed less than 60 feet from a front property line. The Zoning Ordinance requires accessory buildings in the "R-1" through "R-4" Districts to be located at least 60 feet from the front property line and with a corner lot that requirement applies to both streets. When the owners first contacted the Planning Office about the issue, the staff worked with them to see if there was any way of siting pool that would meet all the requirements. After reviewing several different options, it was determined that any location would require some type of variance. The owner feels that the proposed positioning of the pool is the most reasonable because it saves some rear yard and has a 38 -foot setback from Redwood Drive. Staff agrees with this and supports the necessary variance. The yard area is enclosed by a fence so the pool will have no visual impact on the neighborhood even with the reduced setback. June 15, 1987 Item No. 4 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors. A motion was made to approve the necessary variance for the pool as requested. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. June 15, 1987 Item No. 5 - Z-4847 Owner: Carl Townsend Address: 2822 Center Street Description: East 90 feet of Lot 7, Block 5 Liberty Hill Addition Zoned: "R-4" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7-101.4/D to permit a new residence with reduced yard area. Justification: Size of the lot and being on a corner Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported. B. Staff Analysis The issue is to permit a residence to be moved on the site in question. To accomplish this, the owner is requesting a variance from the front yard setback on West 29th Street and a rear yard variance. In the "R-4" District, a 25-foot front yard is required, and for a corner lot that provision applies to both street sides. Also, a 25-foot setback is the ordinance requirement for the rear yard in "R-4." The lot is only 90 feet so the only way to provide the necessary rear yard is to encroach into the front yard area on the Center Street side, and in this situation, that would not be desirable. Since the owner of the lot is relocating a house to the site, adjusting the structural dimensions to accommodate the setbacks would be difficult, and staff believes that a hardship does exist and that the necessary variances are justified. After reviewing the plan, staff feels that decreasing the setback on West 29th from 20 feet to 15 feet would be desirable for several reasons. First of all, this would increase the yard area on the north side of the June 15, 1987 Item No. 5 - Continued proposed structure and, secondly, a 15-foot yard would be more compatible with the setback for the residence to the west. Finally, redevelopment of infill lots should be encouraged, and the approval of this request will help accomplish that. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the setback variances be granted. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The appliant, Carl Townsend, was present. There were no objectors. Mr. Townsend spoke and said he had no problems with the staff's proposal for reducing the West 29th Street yard area to 15 feet. A motion was made to grant the setback variances with the staff's recommendation for a 15-foot setback for the West 29th Street front yard. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. June 15, 1987 Item No. 6 - Z-4848 Owner: Timothy and Margaret Farrell Address: 5715 Hawthorne Road Description: Lot 27, Forest Heights Place Zoned: "R -2" Variances Requested: From the area provisions of Section 7- 101.2/D.2 to permit a deck with a reduced side yard setback. Justification: (1) Because the structure solves the problem of the excessive slope of the property in a unique, practical, and attractive way which enhances the overall value of the property. (2) Because it has been in existence for four years. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Single Family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues There are no issues. B. Staff Analvsis This issue is before the Board because of an enforcement action. Recently, the Enforcement staff received a complaint about a possible violation of a setback provision for the "R-2" District. Upon investigation, it was determined that a wood structure /deck was built into the side yard and that it needed to be removed or the necessary variance be applied for. (The ordinance requirement for the side yard setback is ten percent of the average width or six feet for this lot. The house is constructed to the setback line.) This request presents a somewhat unique situation because the construction in question has been in place for four years without any inquiries being made until now. In 1982, a tornado passed through this part of the City and heavily damaged many structures in the neighborhood, including the one at 5715 Hawthorne. June 15, 1987 Item No. 6 - Continued At the time of rebuilding the house, the owners decided that something needed to be done to provide access to a back door because the lot slopes downward from the Hawthorne side. To solve this problem, a wood walkway /deck was constructed between the house and the east property line connecting the front with a deck which was built at the same time. All the necessary permits for the major construction were obtained, but the deck /walkway was not included in the original permit application because it was an afterthought and no inspection of the deck was done by the City. (This was an oversight on the part of the various parties involved.) The structure starts at grade in the front and then is several feet above ground level at the rear of the house. It is constructed right to the property line, but there is separation betwen this lot and the residence to the east because of the driveway. Also, there is a masonry wall along the east property line which appears to lessen the impact of the structure being built to the line. The walkway /deck does address a unique feature of the lot and appears to be the most functional design solution for the property. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The Chairman reported that he had received a written request for a deferral. A motion was made to defer the item to the July 20, 1987, meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes, and 0 absent. June 15, 1987 Item No. 7 - Z-4849 Owner: Robert E. Deaton Address: 8707 Stanton Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "R -2" Variances Requested: From the mobile home provisions of Section 3-101/C.1.D to permit a mobile home for security purposes. Justification: (1) As the school grows, there is more need for housing a security guard to protect the property and the students. (2) The variance is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood. Present Use of Property: School Proposed Use of Property: School STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Access to the mobile home must be approved by the Traffic Engineer. B. Staff Ana]ysis The request is to place a mobile home on the property for security purposes and approval by the Board of Adjustment is necessary. The Zoning Ordinance states: The Board of Adjustment is empowered to review and approve or deny applications for the location of mobile homes or other structures in existing mobile homes or nonresidential sites. The use of these structures shall be limited to one single family dwelling unit for on-site security purposes. June 15, 1987 Item No. 7 - Continued The site in question is the location of the Stanton Road School and it encompasses several acres between Stanton Road on the west side and a single family subdivision along the east property line where the mobile home is proposed to be placed. The primary use area is located along Stanton Road where the buildings are and play area. Between the buildings and the mobile home location, there is a large open area with some animals. Based on the survey, the proposed mobile home will be situated approximately 500 feet from the area adjacent to Stanton Road. This distance seems to be somewhat excessive for providing security and staff questions why the east side of the property is being considered when all the structures are sited on the west boundary. During a field check, staff parked at the end of Buckingham Lane, within 30 feet of the mobile home location, and had a difficult time viewing the area to the west. It appears that this type of relationship to the use area will not provide adequate security and staff does not support the variance as proposed. The owner has not stated why the east side is preferable and why the mobile home should not be closer to the existing structures. Also with so many buildings on the property, the possibility exists for utilizing one of the spaces or even making addition for the security person. Other options are available that are more suitable for providing the desired security, and they should be seriously explored by the applicant. Finally, the proposed mobile home location is very close to an established single family subdivision and that could create some problems. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends denial of the mobile home placement as proposed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Robert Deaton, was present and represented by Richard Butler, an attorney. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Butler said that security was adequate on the west side because of a high fence, but on the east side security was a problem and that's where the real need existed. He went on to say that Mr. Deaton did not want any mobile homes visible from Stanton Road and the proposed mobile home would be located in a grove of pine trees. Mr. Butler then again reminded the Board that security was needed on the east side. There were several questions about Buckingham Place and a gate at the end of Buckingham Place. June 15, 1987 Item No. 7 - Continued Mr. Butler said that the property was approximately 6 acres in size and then described the site. Mr. Deaton addressed the Board and said the school was experiencing some problems with the stealing of animals and people entering the property from the east side. There was a long discussion about various issues including access to Buckingham Place. A motion was made to grant the requested variance subject to the location of the security mobile home being within five feet of the interior fence as shown on Tract 36 and not the one along the east property line and a 6-foot opaque screening fence be placed along the eastern property line. The motion was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 noes, and 0 absent. (The Enforcement staff informed the applicant that the person occupying the mobile home must be an employee of the school.) June 15, 1987 Item No 8 - Other Matters Owner: Bill Mathis /Charles Benner Location: University Avenue and West 12th Street (zoned "C-3 ") Request: To appeal a decision by the Enforcement staff concerning temporary sales of merchandise. STAFF REPORT: The request before the Board with this matter is to review the Enforcement staff's interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance and how it applies to the location of the temporary sales of various items. An individual, Charles Benner, requested that this item be placed on the Board's agenda because of what he feels are inconsistencies in the Zoning Ordinance. There are two provisions in the commercial section of the ordinance that regulate temporary sales. 1. Section 7-103(c) District Restrictions No sale or storage of sale items for special events in temporary structures is allowed for a period in excess of 30 days. No more than two such sales or events can occur at the same location during a calendar year. 2. Section 7-103.3(b) Development Criteria ( "C-3 ") All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings except parking lots, plant nurseries, promotional events, and the normal pump island services of service station operation. In addition, outdoor display of merchandise is allowed in an area equal to one-half of the facade area of the front of the building. Certain seasonal or special event sales may be allowed when the owner has requested a permit for such activity in conjunction with the privilege license application. The permitting authority shall review the owner's plan or placement of merchandise in order to assure that the obstruction of drives, walks, required parking, and fire lanes does not occur. In no case shall full-time static open display be permitted. June 15, 1987 Item No. 8 - Continued Also, the Environmental Codes Office has a list of restrictions that they provide to all peddlers and /or individuals involved in temporary sales. 1. You must locate on property zoned "C-3" or "C-4" only. Open display of merchandise in all other zones is prohibited. 2. You cannot have temporary signs at the location. 3. You must have your privilege license on the site where you are located. 4. Merchandise must be kept on the vehicle at all times except on "C-4" zoned property. 5. You cannot set up or display anything in the public right-of-way or anywhere on private property that will create a traffic hazard. 6. You must have permission of the property owner where you are displaying. Charles Benner was operating a sales location at the southwest corner of West 12th and University which is zoned "C-3" and vacant. Mr. Benner had his items displayed in a tent and was informed by an Enforcement Officer that the merchandise could only be sold from a vehicle because there is no other structure on the lot. After that occurred, Mr. Benner questioned why a tent selling plants at the K-Mart Center at University and Asher was not in violation. He was informed that because a building exists on the site that the temporary complies with the ordinance requirements. Mr. Benner contacted the Planning Office and expressed concern with the enforcement decision. because their interpretation deals with some "C-3" property differently than others. He asked what could be done to have this issue addressed and he was instructed to submit a letter requesting the Board of Adjustment to review the matter. (Attached is a copy of Charles Benner's letter for the Board.) BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION; Charles Benner, the individual who filed the request, was not present. There was some discussion about deferring the issue but no action was taken. Kenny Scott of the City staff discussed the enforcement action and the City's June 15, 1987 Item No. 8 - Continued guidelines for peddlers. Mr. Scott said selling seasonal items such as vegetables from a truck was permitted, but the selling of dresses did not meet all the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. He also said that the use needed to be set up on an established piece of commercial property and the City has experienced some problems with freestanding temporary structures. There were some additional comments made and Mr. Scott said that his office did receive several complaints about the operation from nearby commercial uses. The Board was reminded that the issue before them was to determine whether the enforcement action initiated by the City was appropriate. A motion was made to support the enforcement of staff's decision regarding this matter. The motion was approved by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes, 0 absent and 1 abstention (George Wells). April 29, 1987 Board of Adjustments City Hall Little Rock, Ar. '72201 )ear Board of Adjustments, I am writing this letter on behalf of myself and Bill Mathis, the owner of the below mentioned property, to appeal a decision by the zoning enforcement officers of the city of Little mock. I am a merchant who sells hand made Mexican dresses and have rented space on the lot located on the Southwest corner of 12th st. and University Ave., next to Central Termite Control. The owner is Bill Mathis, to whom I pay a daily fee to set up my tent. I had obtained my merchants licence from the city clerk and had set up on this lot (zoned C-3 Commercial), only to be told by a zoning enforcement officer that my merchandise can only be sold off the truck and can not be displayed outside or under a tent brecause no building is on the lot. When I asked why a tent which sells plants is allowed on an empty lot in front of K-Mart on Asher and University, I was told that because a building exists on that lot a tent is permitted. Because the building is so tar from this empty space it appears to be an empty lot also. But a technical irit erpre-tation of the codes appears to allow a tent on the K-Mart property but not on Mr. Mathis' property (both zoned C-3). I do not believe it is the intent of the Planning Board to treat the owners of these two C-3 properities differently, holding Mr. Mathis to a narrow and restrictive interpretation of the codes, and allowing the owners of the K-Mart properities a broad interpretation. This I believe is unfair. This interpretation of the codes causes hardship on myself and Mr. Mathis and we therefore wish to petition the Board of Adjustments to consider a more equal application of this code. Thank you for hearing this request. Sincerely, MAY 6 1987 Charles Benner Vice President TRADE WIND IMPORTS INC. PO. Box 46/Ottine, Texas/Tel.(512)672-2676 June 15, 1987 Item No. 9 - Other Matters Owner: Everett A. Ham III By: Virginia Atkinson Address: 721 West Second Street Request: To grant a hearing for a denied variance request. STAFF REPORT: The rehearing provisions in the Board of Adjustment Bylaws (Article V) are: Section 1 - No hearing of any decision by the Board of Adjustment shall be had except on motion by a member of the Board to reconsider the vote made and acted on within 10 days after its decision and carried by not less than five concurring votes. Section 2 - No motion for a rehearing shall be entertained except upon written request for rehearing and then not unless new evidence is submitted which could not reasonably have been presented at the meeting at which the rehearing was originally had. Section 3 - If a rehearinq is granted, the case shall be put on the calendar for a rehearing and the notices issued in accordance with the notice provisions of these rules. Section 4 - No additional applications to the Board of Adjustment shall be allowed unless there has been a substantial change in the circumstances affecting such property since the prior decision on the same piece of property. On May 18, 1987, the Board of Adjustment denied a variance request submitted by Virqinia Atkinson for an office building at 721 West Second Street. Ms. Atkinson is now requesting a rehearing on that decision and she has submitted a written request with additional information. Staff polled the Board members and obtained the necessary votes and placed the item on this agenda. The matter before the Board is to allow Ms. Atkinson to present new evidence and then for the Board to act on the rehearing request. If the rehearing is approved, the issue will be scheduled for the July 20, 1987, meeting. Additional notification will be required as is stated in Article V, Section 3 of the Board of Adjustment bylaws. June 15, 1987 Item No. 9 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The owner was represented by Virginia Atkinson. There were no objectors. Ms. Atkinson said that the building needed repairs and the parking problem could be addressed by leasing five spaces. She went on to say that a change in circumstances occurred because of being able to provide more parking. Additional comments were offered by various Board of Adjustment members and Ms. Atkinson. A motion was made to grant the rehearing request. The vote on the motion was 4 ayes, 5 noes, and 0 absent. The rehearing request was denied. June 15, 1987 There being no further business before the Board, the meeting,- was adjourned at 3:05 p.m. Chairman Secretary Date