Loading...
boa_04 16 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES APRIL 16, 1984 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A Quorum was present being 7 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members present: Members absent: City Attorney: George Wells B.L. Murphree Ellis Walton Steve Smith Joe Norcross Thomas McGowan Ronald Woods Herbert Rideout 1 Open Position Jim Sloan April 16, 1984 Item No. 1 - Z-2106-C Owner• Riverside Motors Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: 1403 Rebsamen Park Road Long Legal "I-2" Light Industrial From the front yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-104.2/E.1 to permit an addition to the accessory building with a 37-foot setback proposed. (The required letter has not been submitted as of this writing.) Present Use of the Property: Auto dealership Proposed Use of the Property: Auto dealership STAFF REPORT: A. As of this writing, no adverse comments have been received. B. The variance is the result of the Zoning Enforcement Office determining that the Cedar Hill Road site is the front yard. This decision was made when Riverside Motors expanded its principle building, fronting Rebsamen Park Road, and establishing that as a side yard. The front yard setback is 50' in the "I-2" district and the request is for a 13-foot encroachment. The building that the variance is being requested for is already under construction, near completion, so the pending action is somewhat after the fact. The building and the required variance are not issues because it is below grade, maintains the existing building lines of the other buildings, for the most part, and the accessory buildings are removed and isolated from the main portion of the site. If Cedar Hill Road was the side yard, no variance would be required. From a site inspection, it appears that some right-of-way is being used for illegal parking, and that the existing parking area is improperly paved. Staff suggests that the right-of-way be curbed off to discontinue the parking and make the necessary improvements to the parking area. C. Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. April 16, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the item to the next meeting, May 21, passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. April 16, 1984 Item No. 2 - Z-4189-A Owner: Henry Coleman Address: 1801 and 1805 East 6th Street Description: Lots 1 and 2 of C.L. Schafer Subdivision of Block 29, Garland Addition Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial Variance Requested: 1. From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-104.2/E.2 to permit an 8-foot side yard for a new building. 2. From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-104.2/E.3 to permit a 20-foot rear yard for a new building. JUSTIFICATION: 1. The residential lots being zoned "I-2." 2. Size of the lots. 3. The proposed length of the building is 105' and the lots are 140' deep. Required setbacks would not allow the 105-foot building. 4. The proposed size of the building is needed for continued growth of the business. Present Use of the Property: Single family and retail of auto parts Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT: Retail of auto parts A. At this writing, no adverse comments have been received. B. The property is two small residential lots zoned "I-2" and "R-4." The Planning Commission recommended approval of a reclassification from "R-4" to "I-2" at their March 27, 1984, meeting. Staff also recommended approval of the request. The Board of Directors will act on the rezoning request at their April 17 meeting. April 16, 1984 Item No. 2-7-Continued The site is currently occupied by a single family structure and a nonconforming auto parts store on the "R-4" lot. The proposal is to remove the two existing buildings and construct a new building on the property. With the proposed setbacks 8' on the east and 20' on the south, there will still be adequate separation between the structures. To the south, there is a 10-foot alley which would place the new building at least 30' from the residential structure to the south. The side yard relationships to the east will not create any problems. The existing structure to the east has an adequate side yard. A hardship does exist because of trying to utilize residential lots with "I-2" district setbacks, and the necessary size of the proposed building to accommodate future growth in the business. The building will be an improvement over the existing structures and will be new investment in an area that needs it. C. Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. April 16, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z-4203 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: Mrs. P.M. Bell 1917 West 19th Street The east 72 feet of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Block 7, Moore and Penzell's Addition "R-4" Two Family District From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.4/d.2 to permit construction of a carpot with a 2-foot side yard. 1. Provide needed protection from the elements. 2. Because of the existing driveway, it would be an inconvenience to locate the proposed carport at another location. Present Use of the Property: Single family residence Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. There have been no adverse comments received from the reviewing agency at this time. B. The proposal is to construct a covered carport connected to the house and utilize the existing concrete driveway. The proposed carport would create a side yard setback of 21. The ordinance requires 81. The residence to the east is approximately 10' off the property line so there will be good physical separation between it and the proposed carport. It does not appear that the requested variance will create any adverse impacts for the neighborhood. Exposure to the elements is a problem for the applicant, and the carport is a reasonable solution without creating any problems. The existing garage has been enclosed to provide additional living area. C. Approval, subject to the condition that the carport not be enclosed. April 16, 1984 Item No. 3 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the variance with the condition that the carport not be enclosed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. April 16, 1984 Item No. 4 - Z-4211 Owner: Patricia D. Colford Address: 614 North Spruce Street Description: Lot 9, Block 4, Pulaski Heights Addition Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District Variance Requested: 1. From the rear yard coverage provisions of Section 43/5-101.F.2.0 to permit an accessory building to occupy 620 square feet or 245 square feet above the maximum of 30 percent coverage. 2. From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/5-101.F.2.0 to permit an accessory building addition with a 2-foot setback (the ordinance requires 31). JUSTIFICATION: 1. The location of the existing building and driveway. The proposed carport will be attached to the building and utilize the driveway. 2. Other sites on the property would also require the need for a variance request. Present Use of the Property: Single family residence Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. As of this writing, no adverse comments have been received. B. The requested variance is for a carport addition to an existing accessory building. The carport will utilize a concrete slab that is in place and access will be off the alley. There are other carports in the neighborhood using a similar arrangement so this will not create a new precedent for the area. Other locations for the carport would create the need for a variance of some type, and the proposed location appears to be the most desirable and causing the least amount of disruption to the lot. The carport and the variance should have little impact on the neighborhood. April 16, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued C. Staff recommends approval of the variance with the condition that the carport not be enclosed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. A motion was made to approve the request with the condition that the carport not be enclosed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. April 16, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z-4212 Owner: Tom Roberts Address: 3023 North University Avenue Description: Long Legal Zoned: "R-3" Single Family District Variance Requested: From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 43/7.101.3/D.4 to permit an addition to principle structure with a 16.5-foot rear yard (ordinance requires 251). JUSTIFICATION: 1. Additional space is needed, and there is no other way to place the addition other than in the requested configuration. 2. The house was constructed approximately 35 years ago before City codes requiring that structures be a certain distance from lot lines. 3. The area for the proposed addition is already a covered patio and the addition would extend and enclose the existing line of the house. 4. The proposed addition will straighten the lines of the house and should improve its appearance and function. Present Use of the Property: Single family residence Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. As of this writing, no adverse comments have been received. B. The proposed addition is to be on the rear of the structure and follow the existing line of the house. There will continue to be good physical separation between the residence to the south and the east because of generous setbacks. The residence has a front yard setback of approximately 59' which this property has tried to keep in the past with other additions. The April 16, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued carport setback is approximately 421. This type of front yard setback is common on the block and does produce an attractive livable environment. The yards are heavily landscaped and screen the houses from the street. It does appear that the proposed location for the addition is the only viable one remaining. The site is lower than other properties in the area, and with the addition being on the rear, there should be very little visual impact from the expansion. The proposed addition is more compatible with what has occurred in the area and does continue to maintain the large front yard setback. One minor concern that the staff does have is that the variance request will severely reduce what little back yard there is. C. Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors in attendance. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. April 16, 1984 Item No. 6 - Z-4214 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: The Wengroup Company By: Ralph Megna 715 South Sherman Street Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 in Block 3 Johnson's Addition "HR" High Density Residential From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43-26 (2) to permit a zero -foot setback on the south line and a 5-foot setback on the north line. 1. Siting of the accessory structures at the perimeter allows the open space within the project to be increased. 2. It was common in the 19th century for accessory buildings such as carriage houses to be built on the property line. This arrangement is keeping with the historic character of this neighborhood. 3. The proposed design permits new structures to be economically integrated with other boundary features such as the existing granite wall on the north and a new low brick screening wall on the south floor. The presence of a sidewalk and easement as well as streets around the perimeter of the property effectively buffers any impact that these low rise structures might have on the neighborhood. Present Use of the Property: Vacant school building (Kramer School) Proposed Use of the Property: Multifamily units STAFF REPORT: A. At this writing, no adverse comments have been received. April 16, 1984 Item No. 6 - Continued B. The proposal is to convert the old Kramer School into a multifamily residential structure. The project proposes a maximum of 66 units with 50 to 56 units located in the existing building and an additional ten units in the proposed accessory building on the north side of the property with a 5-foot setback. The C.L.R. Zoning Ordinance requires a 10-foot side yard. There is no density limit in the "HR" district, but staff would like to raise the issue of density on this site. The proposed density of this project is approaching 40 to 45 units per acre, and this is of concern to the staff. The Downtown Plan addresses infill density in this area and recommends a somewhat lower density than what is being proposed for this project. The issue of overbuilding should carefully be examined when discussing the variance for the building on the north side. The applicant needs to justify the additional units in the accessory building and placement of it there because of the impact on the project's open space in keeping with the original setting of the site. Another development issue is the street system. Ferry Street was closed between 7th and 8th Streets by City Ordinance in January 1964, but still functions as a public street. The status of Ferry Street must be clarified. Also, can the existing streets accommodate the increase of traffic flow and provide adequate circulation. There are no problems with the covered parking area and its setback. The project is needed, and staff is in agreement with the property's use for residential units, but suggests that the proposed density should be given careful attention during the resolution of the variance request. C. Staff is in complete support of the proposed use, but offers no recommendation on the variance at this time. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Ralph Megna, was present. Mr. Megna presented a historical overview of the school and discussed the Wengroup Company's proposal for the property. He stated that there would be 56 units in the existing structure, and 10 units in the proposed accessory building. Mr. Megna was questioned about the location of the accessory building and he said that was being dictated in part by federal tax and historic preservation laws. The density issued was discussed, and Mr. Megna felt that density was not an issue and said that the variance was a small adjustment to permit a quality project. He also pointed out that there were no density limits in the "HR" district. Staff reviewed their April 16, 1984 Item No. 6 - Continued concerns which included density, parking in the neighborhood and Ferry Street. Staff was concerned that some overflow parking was occurring onto the area streets from various multifamily projects and with other units being proposed, this could have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. It was suggested that Ferry Street should be rededicated because it has continued to function as a public street, and the project in question was showing the driveway coming off of Ferry Street. Mr. Megna said that the owner did not have any problems with that, and would contact the property owner to the east of Ferry Street. After a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance with the condition that Ferry Street between 7th and 8th Streets be rededicated. The motion passed by a vote of: 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. April 16, 1984 Item No. 7 -Interpretation Name: Grueney Stamp Company Request: Deliver an opinion on the proper placement of this business within the commercial zones. The business is primarily involved in the sales of rubber stamps and other such items as nameplates. These items are generally produced through use of materials provided in a semifinished form and require little more than molding or etching to finish the product. The use at issue is a business which has been in place for a number of years and was considered a conforming use under the former Zoning Ordinance. In 1980, the new ordinance changed the permitted use structure of the "G-l" district in the old ordinance to a structure not generally compatible with the type of use at issue. This request is made in order to determine expansion rights for the owner inasmuch as the ordinance does not permit expansion of nonconforming uses. At this time, the building permit staff has determined this use to be nonconforming. Should the Board of Adjustment determine that the use is proper for placement within "C-4," a permit will be issued for the small addition requested. If the Board determines the use to be inappropriate, then a rezoning request would be filed to change the use to "I-2" which unquestionably permits manufacturing, or "C-3" district which specifically allows such uses as key shops duplicating shops, handcraft and printing establishments. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, J.D. Ward Jr., was present. The staff reviewed the issue at hand to determine the appropriate zoning district for the Grueney Stamp Company. Mr. Ward described the various activities that the company was engaged in. He stated that there were some duplication along with production of nameplates, rubber stamps and other similar items. The company also had some retail uses such as office supplies. Mr. Ward indicated that the production end of the business was becoming secondary to the other activities and that there was no manufacturing on the premises. A motion was made to interpret the Grueney Stamp Company on West 2nd Street as a "C-3" use. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent and 1 open position. April 16, 1984 There being no further business before the Board, the Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m. Date J __ r { Secretary' j f Chairperson