Loading...
boa_04 18 1983LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD APRIL 18, 1983 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A Quorum was present being six in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The Minutes of the previous meeting were approved as mailed out. III. Members Present: Ellis Walton, Chairman Joe Norcross Tom McGowan Richard Yada B.L. Murphree Marcelline Giroir Members Absent: George Wells Steve Smith City Attorney: Hugh Brown April 18, 1983 Item No. 1 - Z-3995 Owner: Ed Willis, et al. By: Robert Slay Address: 1024 N. University Avenue rear of lot Description: Lots A and B, Replat of Block 10 Pleasant Hills Addition Zoned: "MF-6" Multifamily Variance Requested: Relief from Section 8-101.H.2 to permit an accessory parking lot for office use. Present Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Accessory Parking to Serve Adjacent Clinic STAFF REPORT: There were no adverse comments received from the reviewing agencies. The staff has visited the site and walked the terrain in order to gain a feel for the proposal. Our observations are: 1. The "MF-6" tract is well covered by timber and natural ground cover. 2. A large drainage ditch runs north to south along the west boundary at the toe of a steep slope. 3. The parking lot proposed will cause some excavation of the right-of-way area of Garfield Street and a small portion of the "MF-6' site. 4. The Garfield Street right-of-way has not been abandoned. 5. The proposed drive along the south side of the building will require the removal of an existing attractively landscaped side yard. 6. The "MF-6" site remains a buildable lot for three apartment units. April 18, 1983 Item No. 1 - Continued 7. The variance for parking in the front yard of the "MF-6' tract is required in association with this variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The staff feels the proposed use is appropriate to the circumstances and recommends approval of the proposal subject to the following: 1. All possible steps be taken to assure the least possible excavation beyond the parking lot boundary. This is to assure retention of the natural screening effect to the west and south. 2. No disruption of the existing drainage ditch with the City Engineer to review the on -site drainage and discharge points. 3. Completion of the street right-of-way abandonment prior to any excavation or site work. 4. In removing the landscaped area along the south side of the building, any required landscaping by prior permits must be accounted for in this plan. 5. A landscaping plan for the new area is to be submitted. 6. A six-foot opaque wood fence to be erected along the south side of the east entry drive and continue along the west boundary of the parking area to the north property line. 7. No further building permits or excavation on the balance of the "MF-6" without review by the Board of Adjustment. BOARD ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were several objectors. The applicant discussed the fencing requirement and stated that he did not object to placing a fence there but wanted some clarification relative to the fence and basically agreed to work with the City relative to the requirements put forth in the recommendation. April 18, 1983 Item No. 1 - Continued Dr. David Hall, who stated that he was on the staff of the Surgery Center and served as spokesman for a group, read a petition which addressed the general opposition to the request. Their particular concern seemed to be the future use of the remainder of the property as well as the bulldozing of trees and general related problems regarding lighting and other things. Their essential contention was that the Surgery Center did not need the additional parking and, therefore, should not have asked to use this property for it. Dr. Hall also presented some photographs of the area and some adjacent developments wherein some of the problems that were mentioned regarding this application had, in fact, come to realization on other other developments under other circumstances. He was particularly concerned that there had been a number of alleged broken promises in earlier developments where people had said they would do certain things and then had not followed through in the manner which had been expected. Dante Jacuzzi who owns the property on which the Surgery Center sets and is also the purchaser for this property discussed briefly with the Board the alternatives for placing the parking other places, dealing with trying to lease extra parking from adjacent developments. He stated that the Surgery Center needed the parking for its doctors and other staff personnel saying that they preferred to be able to enter the building from the rear while not having to go through the patient waiting room. There were others in opposition who spoke, Mrs. R. Michael Dougherty, Carl Glenn, Ray Alexander and Gayle Windsor. After a lengthy discussion, the Board moved to defer the matter to the May 16 Board meeting for the purpose of allowing the applicant and the neighboring property owners to attempt to resolve some of the issues which were brought forth in the meeting. The motion to defer was passed - 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 vacancy. April 18, 1983 Item No. 2 - Z-3996 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Present Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT: Little Rock Alarm Co., Inc. By: Jim Morton 217 N. Chester Street Lot 6, Block 352, W.B. Worthen's Add. 110-3" General Office Relief from Section 7-102.3.D to permit a 0-foot setback on the east and west property lines and a 10-foot setback on the south for an addition to the existing building. Alarm Company Office and Monitoring Facility Same The stated hardship in this instance is the building cannot be moved nor can its operation inasmuch as it is wired to alarm systems nationwide, the cost and disruption would be unreasonable. The addition proposed is for emergency power generating equipment. There were no adverse reports received from reviewing agencies. One letter from adjacent neighbors to the east was received. The letter included objections to possible drainage problems created by the new addition. A staff vist to the site indicates the following: 1. All off -site improvements are in place on the abutting streets except that the alley is in poor condition. 2. Off-street parking appears to be provided on an adjacent lot or on the north street side of the building. 3. That four or five parking spaces will be lost adjacent to the alley on the south side. April 18, 1983 Item No. 2 - Continued 4. The site presently does not have landscaping. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request as filed recognizing a true hardship circumstance; however, there are a few items, we feel need attention. 1. In the absence of sufficient area for parking adjacent to the alley, this 10 feet + should be devoted to landscaping in order to soften the physical improvements now in place. 2. Provide written assurance of requiring parking on -site or on the adjacent land. Indicate ownership or leased state. BOARD ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were no objectors and with respect to the staff recommendation for the landscaping along the alley, the applicant stated that property was being used for truck loading and unloading and that it would be necessary to keep it paved so that trucks could pull in to unload equipment, etc. He did state that the company owns the parking lot across the alley to the south and that he would provide the ownership documentation. After the brief discussion, the Board moved to approve the application as filed with the proviso that the parking lot ownership documentation be provided. The motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 vacancy. April 18, 1983 Item No. 3 - Z-3997 Owner: Larry Jacimore Address: 6908 Kingwood Road Description: Lot 235, Kingwood Place Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: Relief from Section 7-101.2.D to permit a 3-foot side yard and a 9-foot rear yard for an attached garage and storage addition. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Same STAFF REPORT: There were no adverse comments from reviewing agencies. A staff visit to the site revealed the following: 1. The existing structure apparently contained a garage at some point and has been closed in. 2. Substantial clear area exists beside the existing structure inside the setbacks to accommodate an addition for garage purposes. 3. The lot is not shallower than the neighborhood average. Its grade from the street toward the rear is more the issue. 4. Adjacent structures are rather close on lots to the rear. 5. The Ordinance allows only 30 percent coverage of a rear yard by accessory structure. In this instance, we see 34 percent by the principle building. 6. Where most intrusion into a side yard or rear yard represents a small percentage of the width or depth, this proposal represents 50 percent of the width of the lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the request as filed. April 18, 1983 Item No. 3 - Continued BOARD ACTION: The applicant was not present. He had written a letter and asked that it be deferred in light of the staff recommendation and stated that he would try to work out some details in the meantime. The Board moved to defer the item to the May 16 meeting, and the motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 vacancy. April 18, 1983 Item No. 4-- Z-3998 Owner: Richard Dunkel By: Bob Bland Address: 7924 Cantrell Road Description: Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 21 Bellview Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial Variance Requested: Relief from Section 7-103.3.D to permit 0-foot setback on the north and 21-foot setback off Cantrell Road right-of-way. Present Use of Property: Vacant Commercial Structure Fire Damaged Proposed Use of Property: Restaurant (Stubby's Barbecue) STAFF REPORT: There were no adverse comments received from reviewing agencies. However, the City Engineer's office offered some requirements for design change in parking, drives and street improvements. The Planning and Engineering staff have visited the site, and the following are our observations: 1. The existing building is fire damaged and in a seriously decayed state needing much upgrading. 2. There are poor street improvements on "W" Street adjacent on the north. 3. The site is served by three curb cuts off Cantrell and an uncontrolled access on "W" Street. 4. The configuration of the site and the building location do not allow parking stall layout as shown. 5. A wider drive through lane and maneuvering area are required at the southeast corner of the building in order to remove conflict. April 18, 1983 Item No. 4 - Continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposal, subject to site plan modifications as follows: 1. That the exterior of the building be treated during reconstruction so as to provide continuity of physical appearance. 2. Provision of street improvements along "W" Street consisting primarily of curb and gutter and possibly some drainage. 3. A maximum of two curb cuts on "W" Street and two on Cantrell Road. These to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer. 4. Provision of parallel parking only in front of the building inasmuch as angle parking requires use of the public right-of-way for maneuvering. This is prohibited by Ordinance. Additionally, no landscaping area remains inside the property line along Cantrell. 5. Provision of a minimum of 28 feet of driveway between the east row of parking stalls and the building by moving those stalls onto the lot to the east. 6. Submittal of a landscape plan for the entire site. 7. Elimination of the head -in stalls off "W" Street and movement of the stalls to the interior of the lot. 8. Resolution of all the above prior to issuance of permits. BOARD ACTION: The applicant was present, and there was one objector. The staff stated that the notice to the neighboring property owners had not been sent in accordance with the bylaws of the Board. However, the applicant had made the attempt to meet with the neighboring property owners in person to obtain their signatures on the same form that is used normally for the single family type variance requests. The Board unanimously agreed to waive its bylaw requirement, feeling that the notice had been sufficient. The applicant April 18, 1983 Item No. 4 - Continued presented a drawing of the proposed project and explained the activity that was to take place there. In opposition were Darrell Riffel, DVM, Bellevue Animal Clinic, who submitted a letter to the Board outlining his concerns about traffic and the sight distance, etc., in getting from Foxcroft onto Cantrell Road. Further, Dan Chapel an architect whose client is Bellevue Animal Clinic spoke in opposition to the request. There was a considerably lengthy discussion of traffic issues, curb cuts and parkings, etc., related to this request. The Board was reminded that essentially the sole variance issue was relative to the building and that while traffic was a concern, it was something that they were not being asked to act upon but further told that they could certainly attach any staff reviews to it that they wanted to relative to the Traffic Engineer. The Board after the lengthy discussion moved to approve the variance for the building setback subject to approval by the Traffic Engineer of the curb cuts and parking and all other aspects related to traffic and approval of appropriate landscaping plans by the City staff and the submission of a proper site plan showing the final configuration of the development. That motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 vacancy. April 18, 1983 Item No. 5 - Z-4002 Owner: Roger D. Wilson Address: 12 Normandy Road Description: Lot 47 and portions of Lots 46 and 48 Zoned: "R-2" Single Family Variance Requested: Relief from Section 7-101-2.D. to permit 5-foot side yard on the south lot line and 23 feet to 25-foot variable rear yard. Present Use of Property: Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Remain Same STAFF REPORT: There were no adverse comments received from reviewing agencies. A staff visit to the site produced all positive reactions. The size of the lot, house placement and the small intrusion into the setbacks suggest no problems with approval of the request. The only point of discussion would be on resolution of the platted building line on the rear of the lot. The owner indicated that the Bill of Assurance on the plat has expired, and since this building line is not an Ordinance requirement, it should not be observed. The staff agrees with this point of view and looks forward to certification of this circumstance by the applicant prior to the public hearing. Staff will report on this issue at the meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the proposal as presented. BOARD ACTION: The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. The staff stated that the abstract company for the applicant had verified that the Bill of Assurance on the property had expired. Therefore, it was not an issue. After a brief discussion of the details of the project, the Board moved to approve the application as filed. The motion passed - 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 vacancy. April 18, 1983 Other Business The Board set a special called meeting for Monday, April 25, to hear a request for expansion of a conditional use under Section 4-102H of the Zoning Ordinance for Pulaski Academy. That meeting was scheduled for 4 p.m. in the Board of Directors meeting room. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m. Date Secretary ,z Chairman �_