Loading...
boa_10 17 1983LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD OCTOBER 17, 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 were approved as mailed. III. Present: Richard Yada Joe C. Norcross B.L. Murphree Steve Smith Thomas McGowan Herbert Rideout Absent: Ellis Walton George Wells City Attorney: Jim Sloan October 17, 1983 Item No. A - Z-3646-A - Deferred Matter Owner: Claude Carpenter Address: 801 Marshall Street Description: Part of Block 1, Fausts Addition Zoned: 110-3" General Office District variance Requested: From the off-street parking provisions of Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit accessory parking for Arkansas Children's Hospital JUSTIFICIATION The applicant points to a need for parking for the Children's Hospital immediately across Marshall Street and a strong personal obligation to that hospital. The owner states that he hopes to sell the lot to the hospital, but doesn't know when they will be able to afford the purchase. He further states that when notified by the hospital that they no longer desire to purchase the lot he will use it as an office property. Present Use of the Property: Parking lot/operation of unauthorized commercial lot Proposed Use of the Property: Accessory parking for Children's Hospital STAFF REPORT A. Enqineerinq Issues None attendant to this request. B. Staff Analysis The application filed is the result of enforcement action against the owner. The parking lot in place and operating has received much attention from the City over the past year. The issues raised by staff are: 1. Operating a commercial parking lot in an "0-3" zone which is not permitted. 2. Deficient landscaping to qualify with City ordinance. A plan for development of the lot's landscaping has been reviewed and approved by the Permits staff, but has not been completely executed. October 17, 1983 Item No. A - Continued The staff feels that the request before the Board can only be valid if the Children's Hospital forwards a written commitment to purchase the land or provide a long-term lease. The Board of Adjustment cannot allow a commercial lot for a pay arrangement in an "0-3" zoning classification. C. Staff Recommendation Denial of the request as filed unless the applicant can present documentation described in the staff analysis whereby the lot becomes accessory parking to the hospital and not a principal use of the land. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (9-28-83) This item was deferred until October 17, 1983, at owner's request in order to provide sufficient time to deal with a commitment by the Children's Hospital. At this writing, no further communication has been received from the applicant. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (10-17-83) The applicant, Mr. Carpenter, was not in attendance nor was he represented at the meeting. A representative of the Arkansas Children's Hospital was in attendance. The Board briefly discussed the status of this application. It was determined that inasmuch as Mr. Carpenter had once again failed to appear before the Board and further documentation of the proposal had not been received that it would be appropriate to take action on the matter. A motion was then made to deny the application. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. October 17, 1983 Item No. 1 -- Z-4108 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION Larry D. Reynolds 9000 Bailey Road Lot 14, Block 7, Pennbrook Addition "R-3" Single Family District From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.2 of the Code of Ordinances to permit an open carport with 5-foot setback. The ordinance requirement is 8 feet. The owner states in his justification that the shape of the lot, the unconventional location of the building line and location of the house to accommodate these circumstances are his justification. STAFF REPORT A. Enqineerinq Issues There are no reported engineering issues attendant to this case. The lot in question is of record as a part of the Pennbrook Addition. All street and drainage issues were addressed in that plat and are in place. B. Staff Analysis The structural relationships between the neighbor's house and the proposal are good. Inasmuch as that house provides 20 feet or more side yard against the rear lot line of this lot, there would be no fire or safety hazard. The plan filed does not reflect an existing building at the northwest corner of the lot which is approximately 14 feet square. As an accessory building, it may occupy no more than 30 percent of the required rear yard. It presently occupies approximately 10 percent. The carport extension, if located in conformance with the ordinance, would require an 8-foot setback for the rear yard since the lot is required to provide a 25-foot setback on both boundary streets. The shaded area on the drawing is the foundation line or the face of supporting members; therefore, a 24-inch overhang of eaves would be permitted. This should be considered in the motion on final action if the overhang is not desired by the Board. October 17, 1983 Item No. 1 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Staff feels that the variance is justified by the circumstances. We would recommend that the structure be limited to a flat roof at the lowest elevation possible while providing a safe clearance for vehicle entry. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Reynolds, the owner, was present. There were no objectors present. Reynolds and the Board engaged in a discussion of the type of structure to be erected as to the composition of the roofline and the type of gable projection over the required yard area. This discussion resulted in a determination that a conventional gable would be constructed with no overhang proposed beyond the 5 foot setback line indicated on the drawing. A motion was made to approve the variance as requested subject to all physical elements of the gable and roofline remaining behind the 5 foot setback. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. October 17, 1983 Item No. 2 - Z-4107 Owner: Lonnie A. Brewster Address: 6808 Hawthorne Road Description: Lot 26, Block 1, Hollywood Addition Zoned: "R-3" Single Family District variance Requested: 1. From the front yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.2 to permit a carport with a 14.2-foot setback. 2. To permit a side yard setback on the carport with a 16-inch setback. JUSTIFICATION The owner states that an entry on the west side of the residence constructed with a raised porch projects into the side yard and precludes a double wide carport. The carport has been constructed partially (framing) in the site indicated on sketch. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: Single Family Remain the same. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues There are no reported concerns at this writing. All improvements are in place as this is a platted lot. A large drainage ditch lies on the west property line but is not affected by this proposal. B. Staff Analysis This owner is complying with an enforcement directive from the Building Permits Office. He began construction prior to obtaining the required permits. This variance action is understandable inasmuch as two neighbors to the east have similar canopies in their front yards with setbacks comparable to the one illustrated on this drawing. This lot is fronted by a October 17, 1983 Item No. 2 - Continued commercial use and zoned property across Hawthorne Street. The only effected lot is the property to the west which rears on this lot. There is a 7 or 8 foot high hedge between the two properties. C. Staff Recommendation The staff feels that given the circumstances in this block the owner is justified in his request. The only problem observed by staff is that the adjacent carports are metal, freestanding type which pose no threat to eventual closure for usable floor space or storage. We feel that this structure must be limited to a like circumstance and be specifically prohibited from structural ties to the house. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Brewster, were present. Mrs. Brewster offered comments in support of the requested variance. There were no objectors in attendance. A brief discussion of the proposal was held resulting in a motion to approve the requested variance subject to those items set forth in the staff recomendation. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. October 17, 1983 Item No. 3 - Z-4098-A Owner: R.K. and Margaret W. Wooten Address: Description: Zoned: variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION 10510 Alexander Road Part of the SW 1/4 of Section 10, T-1-S, R-13-W "R-3" Single Family District at present. Request for "I-2" zoning has been filed. From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-104.2 to permit 0-foot setback on the west property line. The owner states that annexation as "R-2" zoning, the growth of his business and the industrial plan for this area by the City are justification for the variance. Present Use of the Property: Residential and Commercial/Industrial Proposed Use of the Property: Expanded use of the commercial industrial component with expanded work area and storage for forklifts and equipment. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues There are no reported engineering issues associated with this request. The tract is quite large in land area and is isolated from neighboring residences by at least 300 feet. The owner lives in the residence fronting Alexander Road on this tract. Abutting this site are several large parcels which are being held for industrial development and zoned as such. B. Staff Analysis This tract is part of a larger ownership which has been filed for rezoning at the October 25, 1983, Planning Commission meeting. The rezoning will have to be accomplished prior to action of the Board becoming effective. The Planning staff visit to the site October 17, 1983 Item No. 3 - Continued produced little information to support the variance. The property is firmly committed to the present use by a significant structural involvement and aside from cleaning up the site, there is little the public could gain from this request. The proposal will have little or no effect on the adjacent open land area. Conversely no benefit will be received from an industrial building on the property line. C. Staff Recommendation Denial of the request as filed. We do not see justification offered by the owner. There are several options open to the this user other than covering the existing concrete slab, especially since this tract is very large. In the event the Board of Adjustment determines that a variance is appropriate, the staff would point out that a plat dedicating street right-of-way on Alexander Road is required by Board practice. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Mr. Wooten, was present and offered comments in support of his proposal. There were no objectors present. A brief discussion was held resulting in a motion to approve the application as filed. That motion failed for lack of a seconding motion. A motion was then made to deny the application in its entirety. That motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no and 2 absent. October 17, 1983 Item No. 4 - Z-4119 Owner: Rick and Susan Smith By: Ann W. Jarrard Address: 324 Charles Street Description: Lot 6 and the West 10 feet of Lot 7, Block 8, Midland Hills Addition Zoned: "R-3" Single Family District Variance Requested: From the setback provisions of Section 7-101.3 to permit an addition with 3.5-foot encroachment into the side yard and with a 2.5-foot encroachment into the rear yard. JUSTIFICAITON The applicant states the following as reasons for the variance: 1. Irregular shape of the lot. 2. The house is located askew on the lot. 3. Terrain. 4. Access to the rear yard is limited. 5. The house needs updating and additional living space. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Dwelling Remain the same. A. Engineering Issues There are no reported engineering issues attendant to this request. This site does have terrain problems. However, little or no adverse effect will be created by this construction. October 17, 1983 Item No. 4 - Continued B. Staff Analvsis A visit to this lot produced little additional information beyond that filed. We observed an area of potential conflict being the relationship between the new building of undefined height and the adjacent building to the west. It would be valuable to know the total height of the proposed structure and review the elevations on both the east and west sides. The neighborhood has experienced considerable renovation and upgrading in recent years. A number of properties in the area have received approval for variance or change of use. The proposal filed does not offer justification for a variance only an expression of need for the additional floor area. It is not impossible nor even difficult to provide a design alignment of the new addition in order to provide the required setback. The actual movement of the rear building corner would be less than 3 feet. We do not view having more open yard space as a basis for so small a movement. C. Staff Recommendation Denial as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Susan Smith, was present and was represented by her architect, Mr. Jarrard. A brief discussion then followed involving the various forms of modifications which might be utilized to deal with the proposal. A motion was made to recommend approval of the application with respect to the 2.5 foot encroachment into the rear yard and retention of the minimum side yard on the west. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. October 17, 1983 Item No. 5 - Z-4105 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION Dr. John W. Lane By: Carl Williams 2916 Shenandoah Valley Drive Lot 2, Block 28, Pleasant Valley Subdivision "R-3" Single Family District From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.2 of the Code of Ordinances to permit a 16-foot rear yard. The ease of access, unusual structure configuration and preservation of structure facade as seen from the street. Present Use of the Property: Residential Proposed Use of the Property: Residential with expanded floor area. STAFF REPORT A. Enqineerinq Issues There are no reported issues attendant to this request. The lot is a lot of record within the Pleasant Valley Subdivision plat. There are no unique terrain or site problems. B. Staff Analysis The request stated here is borderline justifiable in our assessment. There are none of the usual circumstances supporting the variance, only a large lot and open space relationships. The existing rear yard is provided at a setback average of over 30 feet. The lot has a rear line approximately 30 feet wider than the street frontage and borders on a permanent open space. The dimension of the structure is such that if it were detached it could be located 3 feet from the rear line of the property by ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance would permit 30 foot coverage of the rear yard area. The addition proposed is less than October 17, 1983 Item No. 5 - Continued 10 percent. If justification exists in this request, it could only be related to the openness of this subdivision plat and the permanent space to the rear of the lot. C. Staff Recommendation Approval of the request as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Mr. Carl Williams, the contractor, was present representing Dr. Lane. He offered several comments in support of the request. There were no objectors present. A brief discussion followed. A motion was made to approve the application as reflected on the revised plan omitting the notched corner on the southwest corner of the addition. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstention (Joe Norcross). October 17, 1983 Item No. 6 - Z-1390-A Owner: U-Haul Company of Arkansas By: James R. Munson Address: 4809 West 65th Street Description: A part of Tract 17, Leigh and Butler Acres Zoned: "I-3" Light Industrial District Variance Requested: From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-104.2 of the Little Rock Code of Ordinances to permit a 15-foot setback. JUSTIFICATION The site to be built upon will be approximately 12 feet below the grade of the properties lying to the south. Therefore, the building will not be visible from the apartments. After erection of a privacy fence which has been suggested by the applicant, the view of this site will be considerably diminished. Further, this proposal will keep vehicles between the buildings, and the present paint building will be eliminated. It is now completely exposed. Present Use of the Property: Sales, rentals and repair of vehicles. Proposed Use of the Property: Remain the same. STAFF REPORT A. Engineering Issues There are no reported issues. There will be some excavation on the site but that action should not adversely affect adjacent properties. B. Staff Analysis This site was occupied in the late summer of 1964 by this usage after the owner committed to a specific site plan with amendment allowed only through review by the Planning Commission or Board of Adjustment. We feel the structure intended is a good use for the site and will upgrade the property. We see no problem with the prior plan or addition of this structure. In fact, the October 17, 1983 Item No. 6 - Continued proposal at hand will eliminate a use area now located in a metal structure which appears to be a vehicle painting facility. We do think that the fence along the south property line is a necessity and should be part of the Board's motion if the variance is approved. The fence should be opaque in nature and located so as to provide protection against damage by vehicle maneuvering in the adjacent apartment house parking lot. C. Staff Recommendation The staff feels that the variance requested is justified by the site circumstances and improvement of the property adjacent to its residential neighbors. Approval of the proposal subject to the fence as noted above. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The application was represented. Staff advised the Board that the notice to adjacent property owners had not been accomplished as directed; therefore, the issue should be deferred until the following meeting. The applicant was advised of the date. A motion was then made to defer the matter to November 21, 1983. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent. October 17, 1983 There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 2:40 p.m. Date 1 I - - 83 se/Erse/ErR ary Chairman