Loading...
boa_07 16 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD JULY 16, 1984 2:00 P.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum. A Quorum was present being 8 in number. II. Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Members Absent: George Wells Richard Yada Ellis Walton Joe Northcross Thomas McGowan Herbert Rideout Ronald Woods Steve Smith B.L. Murphree City Attorney: None July 16, 1984 Item No. A - Z-4238 Owner: Jack Bennett Address: 4724 Asher Avenue Description: Long Legal Zoned: "I-2" Light Industrial variance Requested: From the front yard setback provisions of Section 7-104.2/E.1 to permit a canopy cover with a 15-foot setback. JUSTIFICATION: None supplied as of this writing. Present Use of the Property: Tire service Proposed Use of the Property: Remain the same with physical improvement STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None received as of this writing. B. Staff Analvsis A visit to this site reveals several issues which have made conditions of this development approval may produce a withdrawal of the request. This is not to say that these issues are more significant than the request at hand but that the owner may not be financially committed to resolving the problems to be introduced by staff. The first of these issues is a lean-to type of structure adjacent to the building which is, in our opinion, a danger to passersby. This structure should be removed for safety. The second item is the access to Asher Avenue. At present, this is a 100-foot, plus or minus, opening with no traffic access control to the pump islands. There should be a maximum of two curb cuts with traffic safety islands designed between and on each end. Three, there should be an upgrading of the parking area within the lot. As to the variance at hand, we do not find fault with the proposal to cover the service area. The 15-foot July 16, 1984 Item No. A - Continued setback is about an average on Asher Avenue for such canopies. This is a result of the prior City Zoning Ordinance permitting canopies by right with a 15-foot setback. C. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to resolution of the three items noted in the Staff Analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (5-21-84) The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the request to June 18, 1984, passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-18-84) The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the request to July 16, 1984, passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The Board of Adjustment instructed the staff to contact the applicant and determine if he wishes to pursue the variance request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-16-84) The applicant was not present when this item came before the Board. Staff recommended that the item be withdrawn from the agenda because of the applicant's failure to notify the property owners and lack of attendance at the hearings. A motion was made to withdraw the request from the agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. After this action was taken, the applicant, Willie Byrd, arrived and staff informed the Board of Mr. Byrd's presence. The members decided to discuss Mr. Byrd's request at the end of the meeting. After a brief discussion with Mr. Byrd, a motion was made to void the previous action and defer the item to the August 20 meeting. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. July 16, 1984 Item No. B - Z-4261 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: Carroll and Frances Garner Pleasant Forest Cove Lot 6, Pleasant Forest Park Addition "R-2" Single Family From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 to permit a 40-inch encroachment. The house is completed and has had all the required inspections except for the final. Present Use of the Property: Single Family Proposed Use of the Property: Same STAFF REPORT: A. Enqineerinq Issues Engineering reports they have no adverse comments. B. Staff Analysis The issue at hand is the construction of a garage which encroaches into the side yard setback. The garage and residence are 90 percent completed, and that is the applicant's justification for the variance. It is the staff's understanding that the building plans that were approved by the City showed the garage to be a little over 8 feet from the property line which is in conformance with the setback requirements for the "R-2" District. The Zoning Ordinance requires an 8-foot side yard maximum in the "R-2" District. During the construction of this house, the outer wall of the garage was constructed approximately 40 inches closer to the north property line and creating an encroachment into the side yard. This reduced the setback to approximately 58 inches. Because of this encroachment, there is poor separation between this new structure and July 16, 1984 Item No. B - Continued the residence immediately to the north and produces an undesirable situation. The property in question is higher than the adjacent lot and that makes the intrusion into the setback more visible. Also because of this lot being higher, the residents at #4 Pleasant Forest Cove have experienced some flooding since the construction of the house at #2 Pleasant Forest Cove. They have indicated that there were no problems with flooding prior to construction. Based on this runoff problem and a visual inspection of the site, it appears that the location of the garage has impacted the neighborhood. It is unclear as to why the garage was constructed in a configuration other than what was approved by the Building Permits Office. Because there are no apparent hardships, it appears that the garage was enlarged just for that reason. The staff does not support the request because there is no true hardship and the variance has not been justified. (See accompanying letters for additional information.) C. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends denial of the variance request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-18-84) The applicant, Carroll Garner, was present. Mr. Garner's attorney, Walt Murray, was also present. There was one objector in attendance. Mr. Murray spoke and described the issue at hand. He indicated that the residence had received all the necessary inspections except for the final. He stated that it would cost approximately $15,000 to remove the garage wall and all of the utilities that enter the structure at that point. Mr. Murray felt that this did create a hardship for the owner. He then distributed photos of the structure to the Board of Adjustment members. Mr. Murray briefly discussed the flooding issue. Mr. Garner then spoke and stated that he had depended on somebody else and was not sure how the encroachment took place. He also stated that he had experienced some problems with vandalism. At this point, staff distributed a memo from Roy Beard, Building Official, to the Board of Adjustment members. This memo described the sequence of events and inspections that were made by the City. Mr. Murray spoke again and stated that the original plans were correct, but that those plans had been lost. After that, a duplicate set of plans was July 16, 1984 Item No. B - Continued used. Mr. Garner informed the Board of Adjustment members that he did not realize he had a problem until he was told to file for a variance. He stated that he was aware of the complaints from the neighboring property owners. He said that he would try to address the drainage/flooding problem but by being the highest point may present some difficulties. Kenny Scott of the City Zoning Enforcement Office addressed the Board of Adjustment. He stated that a building permit was issued on June 21, 1983, and the plan submitted had an 8' 2" setback and that additional construction took place after the original inspection. Bobby Gravett, #4 Pleasant Forest Cove, the property to the north, objected to the variance. He stated that since the construction of the structure in question, his property had experienced water problems including flooding of the kitchen. His biggest concern was encroachment and how it would effect his property values because of #2 Pleasant Forest Cove being the high point. Mr. Gravett said that the garage with the encroachment was creating an impact on his property and it should be moved back. Mr. Murray spoke again and suggested that Mr. Gravett's property also had a possible encroachment problem. He also indicated that an addition that the Gravetts had constructed may be the source of some of the flooding. Mr. Gravett responded to Mr. Murray's comment and said the runoff is not coming from their property. He again emphasized their concern with the effects on property values and the desirability of the neighborhood. Mr. Gravett had not received a professional estimate to determine the monetary impact on his property. Mr. Garner then suggested that he would retain an impartial realtor to inspect the situation and make a determination on the value question. A motion was made to approve the variance with the condition that the water problem be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The vote was: 4 ayes, 4 noes and 1 absent. The motion failed for lack of five positive votes and the variance was denied. A second motion was made to defer the item, but it was withdrawn. There was discussion about possible remedies and that two parties should try to work together because there appears to be room to negotiate. A question was raised about the structure being occupied until the matter is resolved and acted on. The possibility of issuing a temporary certificate of occupancy was discussed. After some discussion, a motion was made recommending that a temporary certificate of occupancy be issued for the living portion exclusively and that the owners assume all further consequences. The motion failed for lack of a second. A motion to defer the item to the July 16 meeting passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe, 1 absent and 1 abstention (B.L. Murphree). Mr. Murray questioned the various motions and there was further discussion. The Board of Adjustment asked that the building inspector directly involved with the issue be present at the next meeting. July 16, 1984 Item No. B - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (7-16-84) The applicant, Carr( attorney, Walt Murry objector present. r solutions for screei problem. He descrif include trees and sr of drainage structui that he had obtainec improvements. Mr. D Mr. Garner indicate with the Gravetts', directed by the Boat tried to contact the unable to reach then described the market Rainey Realty. The question would incrE that it would not in Kim Gravett, propert that she was still c 11 Garner, was present. Mr. Garner's y, was also present. There was one r. Garner discussed some possible ing the wall and addressing the drainage ed the landscaping plan which would rubs planted along the wall and the type e to be utilized. Mr. Garner stated a cost estimate for doing the necessary urray also discussed the drainage issue. to the Board that he was unable to meet the property owners to the north, as d of Adjustment. He stated that he Gravetts on several occasions, but was Both Mr. Garner and Mr. Murray analysis that had been undertaken by analysis suggested that the structure in ase the value for the neighborhood and pact the residence to the north. y owner to the north, spoke and stated Doosed to the reauest. The wall was to close and she felt that nothing could be done to solve that problem. Again, Mr. Garner stated that he was unable to contact the Gravetts. Ms. Gravett indicated that they were usually home in the evenings. Roy Beard, Chief of Protective Inspections, then spoke. Mr. Beard described to the Board members when footing inspections are made and how they are made. The footings are open when inspected and the property lines are marked. The various yards are measured and Mr. Beard stated that mistakes of inches were not uncommon. The footing inspection for the structure in question was made on November 15, 1983, and adequate yard spaces were provided at that time. No further verification was made. At some later time, the encroachment was made and Mr. Garner was notified that the structure was in violation. Mr. Garner was informed of the situation after the sheetrock had been installed. He was notified in person and by phone conversations. Mr. Garner felt that there was a hardship involved with the request and that he was willing to resolve the situation. Mr. Murray stated that a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued for the dwelling portion of the structure. A temporary certificate of occupancy was discussed by the various parties. Ms. Gravett spoke again and stated that the Bill of Assurance also required setbacks. She was questioned by various Board of Adjustment members about possible compromises. Ms. Gravett indicated that the overall appearance was still the problem and there was no solution to that situation. There was additional discussion about the proposed landscaping and other improvements by the Board of Adjustment. A motion was made to recommend that the variance be denied. The motion passed by a vote of 5 ayes, 2 noes, 1 absent and 1 abstention (Ronald Woods). The variance request was denied. July 16, 1984 Item No. 1 - Z-2450-A Owner: Barbara Baber and Jean Cross Address: 7811 Cantrell Road Description: Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Block 20 Bellevue Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District Variance Requested: From the front yard setback provisions of Section 7-103.3.D.1 to permit front yard setback of 8' 5". JUSTIFICATION: 1. Proposed use will be nighttime use only. 2. "E" Street is primarily a low usage street and is closed on the opposite side of Cantrell Road. 3. Cantrell Road restricts expansion potential of the site in the area of Glover Street. Present Use of the Property: Restaurant, Offices Proposed Use of the Property: Remain the same with additional floor space. STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported at this writing. B. Staff Analysis The applicant has not presented substantial evidence of a hardship circumstance as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The points made in the application are no doubt valid; however, they do not support a 17-foot + intrusion into a required setback. The area of the variance is presently occupied by a couple of parking spaces which are in short supply if a restaurant is to continue occupying this site and the adjacent expansion area. The mini -mall covers a substantial portion of this ownership which requires all of the existing parking to back into public right-of-way, either "E" July 16, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued Street on the north or the alley on the south. It appears to staff that the best option if possible would be for the proposed expansion to occur within the existing established building. C. Staff Recommendation Denial of the request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Gary Dean, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Dean discussed the variance request at length. He stated that the proposed addition is very small and that expansion within the building was restricted. He felt that a hardship did exist because the existing space was too small. Mr. Dean went on to point out that the location is below grade and the visual impact would be minimal. He stated that the restaurant would only operate in the evening and the bank to the west would allow their parking lot to be utilized by the restaurant because of the evening hours. There was some discussion by the Board members about the parking and the number of spaces. Mr. Dean indicated that the restaurant needed more dining area and that expansion potential was limited. Barbara Baber, one of the owners of the property, discussed the exposure of the proposed addition and other items. She stated that there was no opposition to the proposal. After additional discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe and 1 absent. July 16, 1984 Item No. 2 - Z-4263 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: Robert and Diane Tucker 5225 Edgewood Road Lot 53, Prospect Terrace Addition "R-2" Single Family District From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.2.D.3 to permit an addition with a 4.3 foot side yard. 1. The existing residence is located 4.3 feet from the property line and the proposed addition will not be closer. 2. Because of the configuration of the lot and the location of the existing house on the lot, the addition to the house cannot be situated any greater distance from the side yard. Present Use of the Property: Single Family Residence Proposed Use of the Property: Remain the same with additional floor space. STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported at this writing. B. Staff Analvsis This applicant does not offer a substantial hardship; however, the proposal is supported somewhat by the lot configuration which is 14 feet out of square. This lot shape is frequently observed in this neighborhood which was developed with a curvalinear street system. The one-story addition proposed will in no way create a problem for the adjacent lots or structures inasmuch as those lots have larger side yards. The house on this lot is one of the few in the immediate area that was constructed with a long east/west access thereby reducing the side yards to small numbers. The house July 16, 1984 Item No. 2 - Continued to the west has a side yard of approximately 15 feet. C. Staff Recommendation Approval as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The Board of Adjustment discussed the request briefly. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. July 16, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z-4269-A Owner: Don Capps Address: New Benton Highway approximately 600 feet west of Production Drive and immediately east of the Munsey Products Plant Description: Long Legal Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District (An application for "I-2" Light Industrial has been filed.) Variance Requested: From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 43/7.104.2.E.3 to permit a rear yard setback of 10 feet for a new building. JUSTIFICATION: 1. Provide for more parking convenience for customers. 2. Display product to be sold. 3. Existing structures on property lines on buildings surrounding the property. 4. Considering the proposed site plan, I feel that display of my product on asphalt paving in front of sales and service facility will improve the general appearance of the property. 5. In case of fire or other emergencies, several 14' x 14' doors will allow access from the side of building. The drives will be open to any and all such traffic. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT: A. Engineeri Vacant Land Camper sales Issues None reported at this writing. July 16, 1984 Item No. 3 - Continued B. Staff Analysis This application involves a vacant acreage tract which has no physical or design problem that could be termed a hardship. The primary concern offered is the applicant's statement of visibility of his merchandise and convenience of his customers. The staff feels that the proposed building could be sited in a fashion that would offer both visibility of merchandise and conformance to the Ordinance. While it is true that several neighboring buildings such as the Munsey Products Building do intrude on setbacks, those generally occurred prior to annexation. We do not support acceptance of those standards in lieu of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. C. Staff Recommendation Denial of the request. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Don Capps, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Capps said that they had outgrown there present location on South University and needed additional space. He then went on to discuss the proposed building and site plan. The plan provided adequate parking for customers and good circulation. Mr. Capps said this was important because of having to accommodate very large vehicles such as motor homes. He described the proposed building which would have office and warehousing in the front with a service department located at the rear. There was some discussion about the impact of a 10-foot rear yard. There were additional comments made by Mr. Capps addressing the variance and the hardship. A motion was made to recommend denial of the request. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. The variance was denied. July 16, 1984 Item No. 4 - Z-4277 Owner: Glynn D. Adams Address: 12324 Stagecoach Road Description: Long Legal Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District Variance Requested: From the mobile home provisions of Section 43/3-101.C.l.d to permit a mobile home to be located on a business site for security purposes. JUSTIFICATION: le The owner states that one vehicle and other items have been stolen from these premises. Also, the business has been broken into and vandalized. 2. The area is low and unsuitable for a permanent structure. 3. The location is not visible from Stagecoach Road. Surrounding properties will not be impacted by placement of a mobile home because of the uses. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT: A. Pest Control Company Remain the same Enqineerinq Issues None reported at this writing. B. Staff Analysis This applicant has placed a conventional mobile home on this site for security since burglary and vandalism are problems. The lot is very deep, bordered by a large cemetery, commercial uses and industrial uses. The only question we pose is why is the mobile home located so far north of the commercial use site. It would appear to be a better deterrent to intruders if the mobile home were located closer to the business buildings served. There is at this time approximately July 16, 1984 Item No. 4 - Continued 600 feet separation between the shop and the mobile home site. The area between the two did not appear to be one brightly lighted. The only other item of concern to the staff relatively to this proposal is that the property is at the present time classified single family. We would recommend that he take steps to receive the appropriate zoning classification for the use and place. C. Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to the separation of the structures being adequately explained and resolution of the zoning question. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Glynn Adams, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Adams discussed the location of the mobile home and stated that there were some physical constraints to moving it closer to the office. There were only two locations that could accommodate the mobile home, and Mr. Adams felt that the placement of the mobile home at the rear of the property would satisfy the business' need for security. A motion was made to approve the variance subject to filing a rezoning application for the property. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. July 16, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z-4279 Owner: James B. Rasco Address: East End of Scenic Drive cul-de-sac Description: Lot #1, Rasco Subdivision being a replat of Marcie Manor Subdivision Zoned: "R-2" Single Family District Variance Requested: From the side yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.2.D.2 to permit reduction of the setback to 0 feet on the west side. JUSTIFICATION: 1. Construction on the least steep portion of Lot 1. 2. To allow for the retention of the site's most prominent natural features being a 60-foot pine tree. 3. The side yard in question abuts an undeveloped park which is a permanent preservation of a densely wooded steeply sloping ravine so there will never be an adjacent structure of any kind on this side of the property. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT: Vacant Construct Single Family Dwelling A. Engineering Issues None reported at this writing; however, we would like to report that this applicant has received Planning Commission approval to replat the former five -lot subdivision into two large lots thereby creating a better environment for lots with difficult access. B. Staff Analvsis The applicant presents in this case one of the few true hardship circumstances, that is, steep slopes which consist of 50 to 70 percent. The land to the west is committed to permanent open space thereby eliminating July 16, 1984 Item No. 5 - Continued any potential objection. The next nearest residence is approximately 200 feet to the west and south. C. Staff Recommendation ' Approval as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. July 16, 1984 Item No. 6 - Other Matters - Bylaw Amendment SUBJECT: Amendment of provision setting the time limit on permits and construction. PAGE 3 OF THE BYLAWS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/FINAL DISPOSITION OF CASES ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2 SHALL BE AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS: Section 2 - If an application is granted by the Board of Adjustment, all permits necessary for the prosecution of the work shall be obtained within six (6) months from the date of approval by the Board. An extension of the time restriction shall be permitted only when requested in writing prior to expiration and authorized by the Board at a public hearing. THE PROVISION PROPOSED FOR AMENDMENT NOW READS: Section 2 - "If an application is granted by the Board, all permits necessary for the prosecution of the work shall be obtained within ninety (90) days and construction completed within six (6) months from the date of permission by the Board unless extension of said time is granted by the Board. Otherwise such permission shall be considered void." BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The Board discussed this matter at length, and there was some concern expressed about the open endedness of the proposed amendment. Various Board members felt that some type of specific time element that construction be completed within should be included in the amendment. After additional discussion, a motion was made to change the time provisions of the existing bylaws from 90 days to 6 months and from 6 months to 36 months. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. July 16, 1984 There being no further business before the Board, the Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3:20 p.m. 2Da e Sec,-etary 67'� q 1 Ch i man