Loading...
boa_05 21 1984LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTE RECORD MAY 21, 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: George Wells B.L. Murphree Joe Norcross Ellis Walton Thomas McGowan Herbert Rideout Ronald Woods Steve Smith Richard Yada City Attorney: Jim Sloan May 21, 1984 Item No. A -- 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. May 21, 1984 Item No. A - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: April 16, 1984 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. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: May 21, 1984 Bob Richardson was present and represented the owner. There were no objectors present. Mr. Richardson spoke in support of the request and distributed letters to the members explaining what was being proposed and why the variance was requested. This letter had been requested by the staff. There was some discussion about the parking issue described in the staff analysis. Mr. Richardson stated that he was confident the owner would address the problems. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 21, 1984 Item No. 1 - Z-3272-B Owner: Richards, Inc. Address: 6620 South University Avenue Description: Long Legal Zoned: "C-4" Open Display District Variance Requested: 1. From the no open display provisions of Section 7-103.4/B.5 to permit limited display in the first 20 feet of the tract. 2. From the front setback provisions of Section 7-103.4/E.1 to permit reduced setback to 34 feet for a new building, Ordinance requirement at 45 feet, also from the side yard setback provisions of Section 7.103.4/E.2 to permit a 12-foot setback. JUSTIFICATION: 1. The 45-foot setback requirement places a severe handicap because the new facility would be unable to be seen except when directly in front of the building. This will maintain the same front building line as with the existing building. 2. An auto dealership needs high visibility, thus the need for encroaching into the front 20 feet. Present Use of the Property: Used car lot Proposed Use of the Property: New auto dealership STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None received as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis A visit to the site reveals that if this building is placed forward of the building line, then the same argument will carry south to all abutting lots. The curvature of South University Avenue causes most of the visibility problems in association with the close placement of existing buildings. These buildings are May 21, 1984 Item No. 1 - Continued generally located at the minimum setback line. It appears to staff that a redesign which places the new building against the south property line will increase visibility. This will, of course, require a full setback variance. Inasmuch as all of the existing buildings will be removed, such a redesign should present no problem. The display of merchandise in the front yard area is not out of character for an auto sales area. However, the staff feels that a start must be made at some point to attempt to bring older commercial areas into conformance with new community standards. We feel that this property is a good beginning in this area where so many users display merchandise up to the property line. C. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends denial of the variances requested, but suggests that a side yard variance to allow the new structure to be constructed against the south property line. We would also encourage the removal of all of the existing buildings not justified for retention for this use. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Ron Boyeskie, was present. There were no objectors present. Mr. Boyeskie spoke in support of the variance request and described the site and discussed the variance length. He stated that a drainage problem at the rear of the property is a primary consideration for the design and location of the building. Mr. Boyeskie pointed out that an auto dealership requires high visibility and any other location than what is being proposed would remove it from the most visible site. He also said that some limited display in the first 20 feet was necessary for an auto dealership. He then went on to describe the existing conditions along South University and questioned whether all the car facilities were conforming to the same set of rules. Dan Richards, Jr., owner of Richards Honda, also spoke in favor of the requested variances. He stated that they must have the variances for the continuous operation to be feasible and that a dealership must have display areas in the first 20 feet. The Board discussed the case at length. A motion was made to approve the variances as filed. The motion failed. The vote: 3 ayes, 4 noes and 2 absent. A second motion was made to approve the variances with the conditions that the landscaping strip be extended to the north and that the site plan be reviewed by the staff. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 noe and 2 absent. May 21, 1984 Item No. 2 - Z-4217 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: .TiiSTTFICATION: Lila Lampkin 2222 and 2224 Durwood Road Lot 22 of Queen Manor Addition "R-4" Two Family District From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.4/D.1 to permit a deck with a 15-foot setback. The Ordinance requirement is 25 feet. 1. The rear yard is the only available area for a 10 x 26 foot deck. 2. The duplex covers a majority of the lot and restricts locations for expansion. Present Use of the Property: Duplex Proposed Use of the property: Duplex STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None received as of this writing. B. Staff Analysis This site is located so as to place the duplex structure well above its neighbors to the west which are most affected. The rear lot line is overgrown with vines and hedge so as to provide a total visual barrier at grade between the rear yards. The deck will be raised above the yard and will offer a view of the neighborhood to the west, obstructed only by a couple of trees. If the deck is an open structure and not covered, we see no adverse effect from its construction. We would recommend that none of the existing trees be cut or modified to provide for the deck's placement. C. Staff Recommendation Approval of the request, subject to protecting existing trees. May 21, 1984 Item No. 2 - Continued BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Lila Lampkin, was present. There were no objectors in attendance. Roy Kumpe was also present and spoke in support of the applicant. Mrs. Lampkin stated that she wishes to put a roof on the deck and maintain it as a covered deck. She indicated she had no plans to ever utilize the deck for a room addition. Mrs. Lampkin said that she would gain more if the deck was covered and that it would not be visible from the property to the rear. A motion was made to approve the variance, subject to the deck never being closed and that the existing trees be protected. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 21, 1984 Item No. 3 - Z-4221 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: George E. or Claire S. Ellef son 1617 North Harrison Street Lot 5 of Block 4, Englewood Addition "R-2" Single Family District From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.2/D.2 to permit a carport with a 2-foot setback. JUSTIFICATION: 1. Protection from the elements. 2. Location of existing driveway. 3. Architecturally consistent from a visual aspect. Present Use of the Property: Single family Proposed use of the Property: Single family STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues None reported at this writing. B. Staff Analysis A site visit produced a positive reaction to this proposal. The owner's proposal will upgrade an older residence, while maintaining its structural character. There is a large side yard on the adjoining lot to the north which supports this request. If the carport is open with one solid wall, we see no adverse effects on the neighborhood property. This owner proposes to make further improvements to the house by way of an additional floor space attached on the east end. The existing garage will be removed to permit the existing driveway to be extended into the rear yard, tying with a present parking pad. C. Staff Recommendation Approval of the request as filed. May 21, 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 as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Joe Norcross). May 21, 1984 Item No. 4 - 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 11C-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 May 21, 1984 Item No. 4 - 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 tc resolution of the items noted in our analysis. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: 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. May 21, 1984 Item No. 5 - Z-4236 Owner: Worthen Bank & Trust Address: Huron Lane Description: Lot 29, Charles Valley Addition Zoned: "0-3" General Office District Variance Requested: 1. From paragraph (a) of paragraph 4, provisions of Section B of Article 5, Ordinance No. 13,797, to permit construction of fill or improvements within a current designated floodway. 2. From paragraph (f) of Section 7-105.4(h), provisions of Chapter 43/Ordinance 14,534, to permit parking within a designated floodway. JUSTIFICATION: This building was planned during 1983. The project has been financed and all financial feasibility factors were based on assumed square footage and parking requirements. The building has been bid and contracts let. Working drawings and site work were based on the floodplain requirements prior to October 1983. At this time, parking was allowed in the floodplain. Notice of change in floodplain requirements was not disseminated until March 1984. The building conforms to current setback requirements and floodplain floor elevations. The proposed site plan as submitted gives up 18 previous parking spaces. We are requesting that the 12 spaces shown dashed in be allowed as shown on drawing submitted herewith .---'-- Present Use of the property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: New office structure STAFF REPORT: A. Fngineerinq Issues The plan shown as a modification of a prior plan which indicated 30 spaces in the floodway. The reduction to 12 spaces can be supported by the Engineering staff, since it is only one foot, plus or minus, below the May 21, 1984 Item No. 5 -- Continued 100-year elevation. Further, this owner had prepared this design at a time when the updated floodplain information was not available to him. B. Staff Analvsis This site plan appears to staff to be appropriate for the layout and physical improvements proposed. We observed nothing that reflects in a negative fashion upon the requested variance. C. Staff Recommendation Approval as filed, subject to the pavement and interior curb design being approved by Public Works Department, the object being to eliminate obstructions to the flow within the floodway. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Larry Townley, was present. There were no objectors present. The Board discussed the request briefly. A motion was made to approve the variance, subject to the pavement and interior curb design being approved by the Public Works Department. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 21, 1984 Item No. 6 - Z-4238 Owner: Address: Description: Zoned: Variance Requested: Jack Bennett 4724 Asher Avenue Long Legal "I-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. 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 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 May 21, 1984 Item No. 6 - 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: 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. May 21, 1984 Item No. 7 - Z-4239 Owner: Graybar Electric Company Address: East 4th and Byrd Streets Description: Lots 1-6 of Block 11, Rector Town Addition and Part of Adjacent East 4th Street Closed by Ordinance Zoned: "I-3" Heavy Industrial District variance Requested: 1. From the side yard setback provisions of Section 7-104.3/D.2 to permit an addition with 0-foot setback. 2. From the rear yard setback provisions of Section 7-104.3/D.3 to permit an addition with a 0-foot to 3.4 foot setback. JUSTIFICATION: 1. The north and south building addition lines would match the existing building. 2. The east line is adjacent to an unopened street right-of-way. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues Electric company Remain the same None received as of this writing. B. Staff Analvsis This issue, like many dealt with in recent times, results from the change in the City Ordinances dealing with industrial properties. Prior to January of 1980, this building addition would probably have received a building permit without variance. The new Zoning Ordinance provides for significant setbacks on all May 21, 1984 Item No. 7 - Continued sites which require most industrial buildings constructed prior to January 1980, be listed as nonconforming uses. This being the case, the issue at hand is in our estimation, acceptable. We would add one condition to any approval granted which is that the Fire Department approve the addition for on -site fire protection service and access. This requirement is introduced, inasmuch as the McClean Street right-of-way is not open and is fenced against intruders. C. Staff Recommendation Approval as filed, subject to Fire Department approval. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Sam Davis, an engineer, spoke and stated that the new building would be constructed to meet all City requirements and codes. A motion was made to approve the variance as filed. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 21, 1984 Item No. 8 - Z-4241 Owner: Steve Scott Address: 3911 Oakwood Road Description: Lot 5 of Block 3, Oakwood Place Addition Zoned: "R-3" Single Family District Variance Requested: From the front yard setback provisions of Section 7-101.3/D.1 to permit a porch expansion with a 15-foot front yard setback. JUSTIFICATION: 1. Excessive slope of the lot from the front of the house to the street. 2. The proposed addition would be approximately one story from street level. Present Use of the Property: Proposed Use of the Property: STAFF REPORT: A. Single family Remain same Engineering Issues None reported at this writing. B. Staff Analysis This request, like many dealt with in this area of the City, results from most of the houses being constructed on terrain or lot sizes that require less than acceptable setbacks. In this instance, we are dealing with a plan to expand an existing porch which already encroaches 10 feet, plus or minus, into the front yard. The main structure will remain behind the 25-foot setback line. This block has large open spaces and grade separations which suggest that this addition will in no way adversely affect the neighborhood. May 21, 1984 Item No. 8 - Continued 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 requested. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 21, 1984 Item No. 9 - Z-4242 Owner: Rector -Phillips -Morse, Inc. Address: Macon Drive West of Merrell Drive Description: Lot 37, Charles Valley Addition Zoned: "C-3" General Commercial District Variance Requested: From the floodplain restrictions of paragraph (a) of paragraph (4) of Section B of Article 5 of Ordinance 14,534, to permit a drive servicing a parking lot within the designated floodway. JUSTIFICATION: Not provided at this writing. Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use of the Property: Retail STAFF REPORT: A. Engineering Issues The Engineer Division of Public Works Department reports they are unable to support this variance and will provide commentary at the meeting. B. Staff Analysis The subject lot was platted at a time when the adjacent drainage structure constructed was believed to contain the floodway. As has happened in other areas of the City, the elevation numbers have changed or, in some cases, developed as new factors restricting development. The Planning staff position on this matter is that the building should be designed to fit the lot with consideration given to setback variances on the west and south so as to better use the available land. May 21, 1984 Item 9 - Continued C. Staff Recommendation Denial of the variance. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: The applicant, Maury Mitchell, was present. Bill Hastings of RPM was also present. Staff reviewed comments submitted by the City's Engineering Office and reported that the staff had no specific recommendation on the variance request. (Staff's initial recommendation was denial.) Mike Batie of the City's Engineering staff addressed the issue and stated that Engineering was neutral on the request and that it did violate the 1983 ordinance. Mr. Batie presented three engineering requirements for the variance and they were: parking spaces be 90 degree parking; the first parking space be a minimum of 15 feet from the property line; and the new surface elevation of the driveway not be greater than the existing elevation. The Board discussed the case at length. A motion was made to approve the variance with the following conditions: 1. Parking be 90 degree spaces. 2. The first parking space be a minimum of 15 feet from the property line. 3. The new surface elevation of the driveway not be greater than the existing. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. May 21, 1984 Item No. 10 -- INTERPRETATION Name: L.D. Stone Company Address: 11721 New Benton Highway Request: Review the development criteria for the "C-4" District as it applies to paving of sales areas and determine if the Ordinance intent is to require full paving of all exterior display, regardless of the type of merchandise. Description of Use: The display, sale and delivery of various types of stone utilized in the construction industry, ranging from landscape boulders, fieldstone, flagstone, limestone and gravels to bank stabilization with stone material. The materials are stored on skins for ease of loading b handling equipment. The Ordinance provision involved in this variance is located on page 98 of your Zoning Ordinance, being Section 7-103.4/B.2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Inasmuch as this issue is quite involved and staff has at this time not completely developed its position on the matter, we will offer comments as —required at the meeting. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION: Dub Hamilton, the owner of L.D. Stone Company, was present. Mr. Hamilton stated that he would pave the parking areas and driveways but would like to only have to use a gravel or SB2 surface for the storage areas. Staff felt that this was a reasonable request and approach. The request was discussed at length. A motion was made to interpret the of the Zoning Ordinance intent as not to impose complete paving requirements for storage areas in the "C-4" district and that Mr. Hamilton be required to pave the driveways and parking areas. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. A It !L May 21, 1984 There being no further business before the Board, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m. Date —XZ�7*- 1 Wee t Chairman