Loading...
boa_06 18 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD JUNE 18, 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 B.L. Murphree Richard Yada Joe Nor cross Steve Smith Herb Rideout Thomas McGowan Ronald Woods Ellis Walton City Attorney: Hugh Brown June 18, 1984 Item No. A - Z-4222-A Owner: Union Rescue Mission, Inc. Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: JUSTIFICATION: 3001 Confederate Boulevard Lot 8, Block 10, Watkin's Addition "C-3" General Commercial District From the street side yard provisions of Section 43/7-103.3/D.2 to permit an 8-foot side yard on the East 30th Street side. The shape of the lot is a triangle, and under the present restrictions, the type of building necessary could not be constructed without a variance. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: A family shelter home for the Union Rescue Mission STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported at this writing. B. The Issue History Is As Follows: The owner of this site is the Board of the Union Rescue Mission which operates facilities immediately across Confederate Boulevard and to the north. Their attorney, Mr. Blackmon, approached the City for needed permits to construct a building. Permit was rejected, Mr. Blackmon being advised that he needed a variance for setback. It developed in the course of discussion with this office staff, that the property also required a rezoning. Mr. Blackmon has filed both actions for public hearing. The site is now zoned "I-2" Light Industrial. The requested rezoning is "C-3" General Commercial. The proposed project involves a simple proposal which presents some serious questions about off -site improvements. Additionally, there are concerns as to the desirability of requiring a significant parking requirement, landscaping of the June 18, 1984 Item No. A - Continued lot and other such allied Ordinance requirements for building permit issuance. The variance requested is of little consequence when viewed against the background of a railroad yard and a commercial industrial neighborhood. The real issue in this case will be whether the owners can and will be able to provide street improvements on two boundary streets, one of which is a minor arterial. We cannot deal with that specifically. However, the parking and access to those streets is within the Board's jurisdiction. Inasmuch as this owner has requested a waiver of the filing fee, it is obvious that funds are limited. He has also made a request for waiver of the rezoning filing fee. The staff feels that in order to serve the Mission's needs and the public interest, that some middle ground be reached on improvements, both on -site and off. It is our impression that a use of this nature will generate very little traffic, and the tenants will undoubtedly not have automobiles. A present Ordinance requires one parking space per sleeping accommodation, and this could be a design problem, as well as a financial burden, within this restricted site. We feel that four spaces would be a maximum on -site need and could be designed into this restricted site. Although the Board of Adjustment does not have jurisdiction over street improvements, we would encourage the Board to go on record as supporting a waiver of the physical improvement of both boundary streets. We base this on the existing Confederate Boulevard being built up with little or no opportunity for private development of the thoroughfare. The widening of Confederate Boulevard to four lanes or 48 feet will undoubtedly be a public project. We do feel that this owner could dedicate the needed right-of-way for the 80-foot minor arterial. C. Staff Recommendation Approval of the requested variance, subject to resolution of the items noted in our analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (5-21-84) The applicant was not present. A motion to defer the item to June 18, 1984, passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. June 18, 1984 Item No. A - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: (6-18-84) The applicant, Shelby Blackmon, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Blackmon stated he was Chairman of the Union Rescue Mission Board of Trustees and spoke in support of the request. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the variance request as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. June 18, 1984 Item No. B - Z-4238 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: variance Requested: .TTTSTIFICATION: Jack Bennett 4724 Asher Avenue Long Legal 11I-2" Light Industrial From the front yard setback provisions of Section 7-104.2/E.1 to permit a canopy cover with a 15-foot setback. None supplied as of this writing. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT: Tire service Remain the same with physical improvement A. Engineering Issues None received as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis 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 June 18, 1984 Item No. B - 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. June 18, 1984 Item No. 1 -- 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. Engineering Issues Engineering reports they have no adverse comments. B. Staff Analvsis 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 June 18, 1984 Item No. 1 - 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 June 18, 1984 Item No. 1 - 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. June 18, 1984 Item No. 2 - Z-4262 Owner: J.C. and Blanch Avants Address: 5805 Woodlawn Description: West 1/3 of Lots 12, 13 and 14 Block 27, Lincolm Park Addition and the East 1/2 of a closed alley lying west and adjacent to. Zoned: "R-3" Single Family Variance Requested: From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 43/7-101.3.D.3 to permit new construction with a 19.5-foot rear yard. JUSTIFICATION: 1. Lot is only 90 feet deep instead of the standard 100 feet. 2. The house is an older structure with small rooms, and with a large family, additional room is needed to make the house more livable. To accomplish this, the new addition will extend the rear of the house 10 feet and encroach into the rear yard by 5.5 feet. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT: Single Family Same A. Enqineerinq Issues No adverse comments have been reported by Engineering. B. Staff Analysis The proposal is to construct an addition to the rear of the residence that will reduce the rear yard to 19.5 feet; the Zoning Ordinance requires a rear yard of 25 feet. The new addition will extend the rear of the structure 10 feet and encroach into the rear yard approximately 5.5 feet. It appears that the room addition will not create any adverse impacts on the June 18, 1984 Item No. 2 - Continued adjacent properties, but staff does have one minor concern and that is very little rear yard will remain with the construction of the proposed addition. There currently is an 18' x 26' building that has substantially decreased the size of the rear yard, and the proposed addition will reduce it further. Because of the depth of the lot, 90 feet, a hardship does exist, and staff does support the request. If the lot had a depth of 100 feet, a variance would not be required. C. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance as filed. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. The item was discussed 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. June 18, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z-4194 - (Modification Review) Owner: Phil Gillette Address: 2422 West loth Street Description: Lot 6, Block 12, Capitol Hill Ext. Request: Modify a previous approval of a side yard variance. STAFF ANALYSIS: In March of this year, the Board of Adjustment granted a variance for a five-foot side yard on the north side. The Ordinance requires a 15-foot side yard for the "I-2" District. Because of new circumstances, the owner would like to shift the proposed building 5 feet to the south. The modification request, if granted, would create a 10-foot side yard on both the north and south sides. This would increase one side yard and decrease the other. The owner has indicated that there are two large elm trees on the north side of the property and would prefer to relocate the building and save the trees. (See attached letter.) It does not appear that the request and modification will substantially alter the previous approval and staff supports the change. The building has also been reduced in size to a 30' x 60' structure. CTAFR RRrnMMRMnATTnw- Staff recommends approval of the modified request. RnARn nF An.THSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. After a brief discussion, a motion was made to approve the modified request. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. June 18, 1984 There being no further business before the Board, the Chairperson adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. Date Secretar 21 ZVI �'J Chairman